Certified Priority Restoration (CPR), an assignee of the insured, Cheryl Coakley, appeals the county courts order granting final summary judgment to the insurer, Universal Insurance Company of North America.
CPR raises one issue on appeal. CPR argues the county court erred when it granted summary judgment to the insurer based on the insurers accord and satisfaction affirmative defense. We addressed this argument in a case involving the same parties, and same insured, in an opinion also issued today. See Certified Prop. Restoration a/a/o Coakley v. Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am., Case No. 4D21-374, ––– So. 3d ––––, 2021 WL 3641850 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 18, 2021).
In the related opinion, we concluded that the insurer failed to establish accord and satisfaction. But we affirmed because the insurer argued a second affirmative defense that supported summary judgment. As in that case, here, the insurer based its motion for summary judgment on two affirmative defenses. First, a defense that the insurer paid the total amount due. Second, a defense that summary judgment was required based on statutory accord and satisfaction. While the motions in the county court were similar, in this appeal, the insurer relies solely on the accord and satisfaction defense. As such, we must reverse. Our reversal is without prejudice to the insurers right to move for summary judgment on the defense that it paid the maximum amount due under the policy. We express no opinion on the merits of any such motion.
The county courts summary judgment is reversed for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Kuntz, J.
Damoorgian and Artau, JJ., concur.