Case Law Update: Barrington III v. Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance Co. — Florida Federal Court Dismisses Post-Appraisal Depreciation and Bad-Faith Claims Without Prejudice

On November 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Fort Myers Division) granted a commercial property insurer’s motion to dismiss in Barrington III of Forest Glen Condominium Association, Inc. v. Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:26-cv-01954-SPC-NPM (captioned Case No.: 2:26-cv-1954-SPC-NPM; Doc. 41). In the suit removed June 10, 2026, after a Hurricane Ian appraisal award across seven condominium buildings, the association sued Vantage Risk for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and statutory bad faith over $280,518.85 in withheld recoverable depreciation and alleged claim delays. The 14-page Opinion and Order dismissed all four counts of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 23) without prejudice, giving the association until November 20, 2026, to file a Second Amended Complaint.

Background Alleged in the Complaint

Accepting the First Amended Complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true under Rule 12(b)(6), the court noted that Vantage Risk issued a commercial property policy effective May 14, 2022, through May 14, 2023, insuring seven buildings. Its Loss Payment clause (Section 4.g) provides the insurer “will pay for covered loss or damage to Covered Property within 30 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss, if you have complied with all of the terms of this Coverage Part and: (1) We have reached agreement with you on the amount of loss; or (2) An appraisal award has been made.”

Hurricane Ian damaged all seven buildings on September 28, 2022. After timely notice, Vantage Risk in March 2023 denied coverage at six buildings—citing wear, tear, deterioration, lack of maintenance, preexisting conditions, no storm-created openings for interior water damage, and faulty-workmanship and existing-damage exclusions—and found replacement cost value (“RCV”) at the seventh building of $1,936.96, below the $25,737.84 deductible.

Barrington III hired a public adjuster (“SCS”), submitted a February 2024 proof of loss claiming $3,061,445.62 net loss from a $3,294,697.24 RCV estimate (rejected by Vantage Risk), and on December 30, 2024, filed a civil remedy notice (“CRN”) citing sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), and (j), Florida Statutes. Vantage Risk did not cure or pay within the cure period.

Barrington III invoked appraisal in April 2025. In December 2025, the panel awarded $2,270,356.50 RCV and $1,989,837.65 actual cash value (“ACV”). In January 2026, Vantage Risk paid $1,809,672.77 net ACV (less a $180,164.88 deductible) without interest and withheld $280,518.85 in recoverable depreciation, conditioned on repair documentation within 180 days. Alleging “Defendant is in receipt of documentation evidencing repairs and, therefore, payment is owed”, Barrington III pleaded breach of contract (Count I), declaratory judgment under section 86.011, Florida Statutes (Count II), and statutory bad faith under sections 624.155(1)(a)(1) and 626.9541(1)(i) (Count III) and section 624.155(1)(b) (Count IV).

Why the Court Dismissed All Four Counts

• ACV Payment and Interest. Vantage Risk argued paying ACV meant “the coverage dispute is extinguished[,] and the insurer has discharged its policy obligations.” That argument “has initial appeal, the cases Defendant cites do not support this specific proposition” because they involved motions to confirm an appraisal award. Barrington III agreed “the policy does not expressly provide for interest.”
• Conclusory Breach Pleading (Counts I and II). On the withheld $280,518.85, the complaint failed to state “what documentation was submitted, when it was submitted, whether it satisfied the Policy’s requirements, or in what manner Defendant failed to act upon it.” Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007), until Barrington III has “plausibly alleged that its actions have triggered Defendant’s obligation to pay the value of depreciation under the policy,” alleging “payment is owed” is “merely conclusory.” Moreover, “failing to allege the specific provision of the contract that has been breached is akin to making ‘the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation’ that the United States Supreme Court warned against in Iqbal.” Count II sought “the same determination of breach based on the same facts” and did “not seek a prospective declaration regarding an uncertain policy obligation.”
• Premature Bad Faith (Counts III and IV). Under Vest v. Travelers Insurance Co., 753 So. 2d 1270, 1276 (Fla. 2000), Count IV is “premature until there is a determination of liability and extent of damages owed on the first-party insurance contract” and “should be dismissed as premature.” Following Ricol Holdings, LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co., 684 F. Supp. 3d 1216, 1220–21 (N.D. Fla. 2023), on Counts III and IV, the court quoted Ricol: the “RCV in the appraisal award determined the potential extent of Plaintiff’s damages, but it did not determine that Plaintiff is, in fact, entitled to that amount of damages.” While paying ACV “was akin to a concession of liability and damages in that amount,” “It would be premature to determine whether Defendant acted in bad faith by not paying the RCV (or the difference between ACV and RCV) until it is determined whether Plaintiff satisfied all of the requirements in the policy necessary to recover RCV.” Simultaneous bad-faith discovery “would prejudice Defendant (and not be in the interest of justice)”. The court also warned against trying to “shoehorn facts related to bad faith into its breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims”.

What This Means If You Have a Florida Property Insurance Claim

This November 5, 2026 order is a non-final pleading ruling on one commercial policy and does not predict any outcome. Still, it illustrates practical points:

• Review RCV conditions. An appraisal award setting RCV and ACV may not establish entitlement to withheld depreciation if the policy requires repair proof within a set window.
• Document repair submissions. Keep repair invoices, submission dates, and the policy clauses relied upon.
• Separate RCV disputes from bad faith. Under Ricol, Florida federal courts may dismiss statutory bad-faith claims under sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes, as premature while an RCV dispute remains unresolved.

See our denied insurance claim guide, browse Case Law & Industry Insights, or request a free case evaluation. General information as of November 8, 2026, not legal advice.