Another side speaks to Florida's Valued Policy Law.

• Author: Bearman, Samuel W.
• Position: Letters - Letter to the Editor

"Florida's Valued Policy Law" (April) is a tale of two articles: First, the author, Mr. Garaffa, did an excellent job in reviewing Florida's valued policy law and the pertinent cases regarding that law. However, the author's criticism of Mierzwa v. Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association, 877 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), was unfair and inaccurate based on the following:

1) The author repeatedly argued that Mierzwa means that when an insured has suffered a total loss of his house by conbination of wind and flood and he has both wind and flood insurance he will be "enriched" by the loss and this devastation of his house will become a "profit-making venture" for the insured. This is simply not true. It must be kept in mind that the insured paid for both insurance policies. Therefore, if he benefits from both policies, it is because he was farsighted enough to purchase both policies.

Second, and more important, if the payment of the policy limits by both the wind insurer and the flood insurer do occur and if that means that the insured has more money than is necessary to rebuild his house, he is required to pay back the federal government, as the flood insurer, any amount of money above the amount required to rebuild the house. The federal government is subrogated to this "overage" and, therefore, there will never be a "double compensation" for the same property as alleged by the author.

2) Under Mr. Garaffa's view of what the law should be, if wind caused the insured's house to be damaged to the extent that the cost to repair the wind damage is, for example, 51 percent of the value of the house, the policy limits will be paid. However, if the damage caused by wind will cost 49 percent of the value of the house to repair it, the insurer will pay...