Insurer Not Required To Pay For "Matching" In Payment Of Damages

In Strasser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 09-60314-CIV, 2010 WL 667945 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2010), the court held that the insurer did not have an obligation to "match" new items with older and undamaged items.  The court stated:

Plaintiff cites to Florida Statute § 626.9744, which requires an insurer to match under homeowner's policies.  However, the policy at issue in this case is not a homeowner's policy; it is a commercial policy. Thus, the statute is inapplicable. Plaintiff argues that based on the language of § 626.9744, a commercial policy requires an insurer to do what is reasonable. However, there is nothing in the language of the statute that supports this conclusion and Plaintiff has provided no other support for this assertion. Further, Defendant has provided, as an attachment to its memoranda, an earlier version of the bill that ultimately became, in part, § 626.9744. The earlier version, in its introduction, referred to § 626.9744 as applying to residential and commercial property insurance. Thus, the omission of commercial insurance in the final version of the statute indicates that the legislature intended to omit commercial properties from the coverage of this section.

The entire opinion is below:
Strasser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 09-60314-CIV, 2010 WL 667945 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2010)

Additionally, you can click on the following links to view related documents:

*Case Docket;
*Insurance Policy;
*Motion in Limine;
*Plaintiff's Response to Motion in Limine;
*Order on Pretrial Conference;
*Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Response to Motion in Limine;
*Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Response to Motion in Limine; and
*Order Granting Motion in Limine.