Florio v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, Inc. · No. 5D2025-0464 (Fla. 5th DCA) · Decided October 2, 2026
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.
A homeowner suing the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) after his insurer became insolvent should have been allowed to present evidence of damages exceeding FIGA’s $500,000 statutory cap, and his claim for damaged personal property should have gone to the jury, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has held. The court reversed a directed verdict on the contents claim, vacated an order in limine that limited the homeowner’s damages evidence to the cap, and remanded for further proceedings.
What Happened
Sam Florio’s New Smyrna Beach home was insured by Southern Fidelity Insurance Company. The policy’s Coverage C covered the home’s contents up to $159,000, and for an additional premium, Florio’s damaged personal property was insured “at replacement cost without reservation or holdback of any depreciation in value.”
In September 2018, fertilizer and red ant killer in Florio’s garage spontaneously combusted, damaging the home and its contents. The insurer hired Servpro for mitigation, repairs, and a contents inventory, but Florio fired Servpro before the work was done. The insurer paid Florio and Servpro a combined $54,800.66 but could not agree with Florio on the total value of his claims. Florio sued for breach of contract in 2019. The insurer admitted coverage but disputed the amount and scope of his damages. After the insurer became insolvent and was liquidated, FIGA was substituted as the defendant. Florio’s counsel later withdrew, and Florio represented himself at a January 2025 jury trial in Volusia County.
On the morning of trial, the court granted FIGA’s motion to exclude evidence of total damages exceeding its $500,000 statutory cap. FIGA stipulated to the admission of Florio’s Exhibits 1 to 15, with Florio agreeing to withdraw portions to which FIGA objected. Florio testified about the fire, the items he lost, and the receipts and photographs he had, and he admitted that he never gave the insurer or FIGA a complete inventory of his lost or damaged personal property with replacement values. He testified that he had inventoried 90 percent of the contents and identified replacement values for many items through receipts or his own knowledge and research. Exhibit 15 included emails documenting items removed from his home, a list Florio said Servpro had prepared, on which he had handwritten his own valuations.
FIGA moved for a directed verdict on the personal property claim, arguing that without a complete, professional inventory his damages were “purely speculative.” The trial court granted the motion “based on the argument for lack of a proper inventory in evidence” and denied Florio’s request to reconsider. The jury awarded $104,071.38 for home repairs, which the opinion describes as consistent with the defense’s expert and argument, and nothing for additional living expenses. The court denied Florio’s motion for additur or new trial.
What the Court Held
Directed verdict. Reviewing de novo, the Fifth District held that because Florio “paid an additional premium to insure his personal property for its replacement value” rather than its actual cash value, “he did not need to admit evidence beyond proof of ownership of damaged property and the associated replacement cost.” He presented that evidence through his testimony, admitted photographs and receipts, and the list in Exhibit 15. FIGA’s later objections that no one established who created the lists, that the emails were not authenticated, and that Florio’s handwritten valuations were not substantiated “were waived when it stipulated to its admission without limitation.”
That evidence, the court held, “presented sufficient support for a jury to find some—though perhaps not all—of his claimed personal property damages,” so the directed verdict was error, and FIGA had not shown the error was harmless.
In a footnote, the court noted that FIGA itself had admitted a professional inventory of Florio’s personal property as Defendant’s Exhibit 8 before Florio rested, then sought to withdraw it after moving for directed verdict. Once admitted, the court said, the inventory could be withdrawn only with written leave of court; none was sought or obtained, “and yet the inventory was excised from the record.” The court said the inventory “would have added further support for Florio’s claim,” while noting that Florio did not raise this point on appeal.
The $500,000 cap. Under section 631.57(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, FIGA is obligated to pay only up to $500,000 for covered homeowners’ claims. But the court noted that FIGA conceded the cap does not prohibit the insured from presenting evidence of the full extent of his damages, and it described the cap as operating as “a post-verdict ceiling,” consistent with other areas of Florida law. “Because Florio should have been allowed to present evidence of damages exceeding FIGA’s statutory cap,” the court held, “the trial court erred in granting the motion in limine.”
The court affirmed on one issue: in a footnote, it found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Florio’s successive motions for continuance.
Why It Matters
When an insurer becomes insolvent and FIGA steps in, the decision holds that FIGA’s statutory cap limits what FIGA must pay, not what damages the insured may prove at trial. It also holds that, for contents insured at replacement cost, proof of ownership and replacement cost—including an owner’s own testimony and stipulated exhibits—can be enough to reach a jury without a complete professional inventory.
The Opinion
Download the full opinion (PDF)
| Court | Fifth District Court of Appeal |
| Case No. | 5D2025-0464 |
| Lower Court | Circuit Court, Volusia County (Judge Randell H. Rowe) |
| Opinion by | Judge Kilbane (Judges Boatwright and MacIver concurring) |
| Decided | October 2, 2026 |
| Result | Order vacated; reversed; and remanded for further proceedings (directed verdict on personal property claim reversed; order granting motion in limine vacated; denial of continuance affirmed) |