Opinion ID: 1667733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Breach of ContractAdditional Living Expenses

Text: The Hilleys argue that Allstate's failure to pay additional living expenses constituted a breach of contract. They argue that, under the following provision [6] of the policy, they were entitled to additional living expenses for nine months: a) We will pay the reasonable increase in living expenses necessary to maintain your normal standard of living when a loss we cover makes your residence premises uninhabitable.  Payment shall not exceed nine consecutive months from the time of loss, or the least time to either: 1) repair or replace the property we cover, using due diligence and dispatch or [emphasis supplied]; 2) if you permanently relocate, the shortest time for your household to settle elsewhere. Allstate contends that nine months is a maximum, not a minimum, amount of time for paying additional living expenses; that the minimum time for additional living expense payments to continue was that amount of time necessary to repair or replace the house through the use of due diligence and dispatch; that the Hilleys had been informed by at least one experienced contractor that three weeks would be a sufficient amount of time to rebuild, and that the affidavit of another experienced contractor indicated that 90 days would have been a reasonable period for the Hilleys to completely rebuild their house if they were using due diligence and dispatch; and that, since both the three-week period and the 90-day period had passed before the Hilleys requested further additional living expenses, Frazier could properly refuse to pay such expenses because the repair or replacement, as contemplated by the policy, had not been made with due diligence and dispatch; but that Frazier still offered to pay three months' additional living expenses in exchange for a release. The Hilleys, on the other hand, contend that they had a right to additional living expenses for up to nine months, but that Frazier modified the nine-month provision by stating what he believed to be a reasonable period of time to permanently relocate and by stating that he was obligated only to pay additional living expenses based on the reasonable period of time it would take to build a house back. Furthermore, the Hilleys contend that, within 150 days of the loss, they had attempted to perform under the contract by securing a contractor who would go forward and begin rebuilding but that Frazier rejected this effort; that Frazier stated that Allstate owed no more than three months' additional living expenses but would not pay that money to the Hilleys, even though he felt they were entitled to it, until such time as the Hilleys agreed to execute a release of any future additional living expenses. Based on the foregoing, we hold that the Hilleys presented a scintilla of evidence that they used due diligence and dispatch in replacing their home. However, in addition to the due diligence and dispatch provision, the Hilleys' policy specifically made the submission of receipts a precondition to payment of additional living expenses: 3. What You Must Do After a Loss  In the event of a loss to any property that may be covered by this policy, you must: [Emphasis supplied.] a) promptly give us or our agent written notice. .... e) produce receipts for any increased costs to maintain your standard of living while you reside elsewhere, and records supporting any claim for loss of rental income. [Emphasis supplied.] It is undisputed that no receipts were provided for any additional living expenses other than the ones for which Allstate had already paid. According to Mr. Hilley's testimony, Frazier told Mr. Hilley to save all receipts [,] that I [Mr. Hilley] have to turn them in to [Frazier]. Furthermore, Mr. Hilley testified that he never submitted to Frazier any receipts as to expenses that Frazier had said he could not cover or would not pay. Thus, because no further receipts were submitted, under the clear and unambiguous terms of the contract Allstate was under no duty to provide any additional living expense payments to the Hilleys. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Allstate submitted affidavits, deposition testimony, and a copy of the policy to show prima facie that it did not breach its contract with the Hilleys. In his deposition testimony, Frazier stated that, even though the Hilleys requested payment for further expenses, they did not present evidence that they were going to start reconstruction nor had they started reconstruction; that, in the absence of beginning construction in what he considered to be a reasonable time and in the absence after four months of any tangible evidence that the Hilleys were going to rebuild, the Hilleys were not entitled to any further payments for additional living expenses; and that the Hilleys never produced receipts evidencing any further reimbursable living expenditures other than those reimbursed expenses already paid to the Hilleys for which they had provided receipts. Once Allstate made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact existed, the burden shifted to the Hilleys to come forth with specific facts to establish that a genuine issue of fact did exist. After a thorough review of the Hilleys' materials submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, we find that the Hilleys presented no evidence to rebut Allstate's showing that the Hilleys had failed to satisfy the condition precedent of submitting receipts for additional living expenses. Therefore, we hold that the trial court properly entered summary judgment as to the breach of contract claim for additional living expenses.