SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. After crashing his 2013 Audi Q5, Plaintiff Thomas

Pieczonka contacted the insurer of the vehicle, Defendant Progressive Select Insurance Company.

Progressive deemed the car a total loss covered by the policy’s collision coverage. Progressive

offered a final settlement payment of $15,789.40, which included an actual cash value amount of $15,320.19, plus $969.21 in sales taxes, minus the $500 deductible. The amount did not include title fees, registration fees, or license plate fees. Pieczonka sued1 claiming that under Florida law actual cash value includes fees associated with purchasing a replacement vehicle.

The district court dismissed the case on Progressive’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, finding that

Pieczonka had not alleged sufficient facts to show that Progressive had breached its insurance No. 20-3537, Pieczonka v. Progressive Select Ins. Co. understood as ‘“the amount of money which a purchaser willing but not obliged to buy the property would pay to an owner willing but not obliged to sell it, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and might in reason be applied” (quoting City of Tampa v. Colgan, 163 So.

577, 582 (Fla. 1935))). This factor plainly does not include the costs that Pieczonka claims should

be covered because those fees are not paid to the seller. See Singleton v. Elephant Ins. Co., 953 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (“That the state collects taxes and fees from the buyer is irrelevant to the question of fair market value because those amounts are not part of the price paid to the seller.”). To be sure, negotiating parties may consider taxes and fees when agreeing on a price, but that is because they are factors that influence market value, not because they “should be added to the price when calculating market value.” Id.

The cases cited by Pieczonka hold little persuasive weight because they interpreted policies in which actual cash value was either undefined or defined in a manner expressly including replacement costs. In Sos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 396 F. Supp. 3d 1074

(M.D. Fla. 2019), and Glover v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 418 F. Supp. 3d 1161 (S.D. Fla.

2019), actual cash value was not defined by the policy. Thus, the Sos court liberally interpreted actual cash value as “replacement cost minus depreciation,” while noting that actual cash value

could mean either “fair market value” or “replacement cost minus normal depreciation.” Sos, 396 F. Supp. 3d at 1079–80 (cleaned up); see also Glover, 418 F. Supp. 3d at 1172 (same).

The policies in Mills v. Foremost Insurance Co., 511 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2008), Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., 121 So.3d 433 (Fla. 2013), and Bastian v. United Services

Automobile Ass’n, 150 F. Supp. 3d 1284 (M.D. Fla. 2015), all either defined actual cash value to include replacement costs or expressly covered replacement costs. See Mills, 511 F.3d at 1305

(defining the term as “’the cost to repair or replace property with new materials of like kind and No. 20-3537, Pieczonka v. Progressive Select Ins. Co. quality’ less [] depreciation”); Trinidad, 121 So. 3d at 442 (interpreting a policy that expressly covered “[t]he replacement cost of that part of the building damaged for like construction and use on the same premises”); Bastian, 150 F. Supp. 3d at 1289 (defining the term as “the amount it would cost, at the time of the loss, to buy a comparable vehicle”). They therefore have no application here.

Finally, we note that Progressive’s payment of the sales tax as part of the final settlement does not undermine this reading of the policy. Florida law arguably separately requires the insurer to pay sales tax, see Fla. Stat. § 626.9743(9), so Progressive added this amount to the actual cash value.

We AFFIRM.