256 So. 3d 245
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- December 2015: major water damage at Brickell Harbour Condominium; Association submitted a claim under its commercial policy with Hamilton Specialty Insurance.
- Insurer investigated, advanced $150,000 in February 2016 and another $300,000 in May 2016 (policy deductible $50,000 applied).
- Insurer demanded appraisal after Association refused to agree the claim was fully adjusted and paid; Association filed suit in June 2016 challenging appraisal and seeking damages beyond advances.
- The policy’s appraisal clause required each party to appoint a competent, impartial appraiser; appraisers pick an umpire whose decision with one appraiser is binding.
- Key procedural facts: parties exchanged estimates, photos, and reports (including a shared Dropbox link); later, the Association’s public adjuster filed fraud/civil remedy notices that chilled further exchanges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether insurer failed to satisfy post-loss obligations (timely payment and "meaningful" exchange) before invoking appraisal | Insurer didn’t fully adjust/pay within 90 days and failed to meaningfully exchange information, so appraisal premature | Insurer made a payment within 90 days, no "time is of the essence" clause, parties exchanged meaningful information and had a reasonable time to complete performance | Court held insurer met post-loss obligations: payment within 90 days and meaningful exchanges satisfied appraisal preconditions |
| Whether insurer-appointed appraiser (Randy Ison) was impartial | Ison should be disqualified because he is employed by the insurer’s consultant and supervises an inspector subject to a fraud inquiry | Ison was not shown to have a direct/contingent financial interest in outcome; party-appointed appraisers are paid by the appointing party and impartiality is ensured by the neutral umpire; disclosures, not disqualification, are appropriate | Court held no disqualification warranted; impartiality for appraisers is distinct from arbitrators and disclosure is the preferred remedy |
| Whether denial/limitation of depositions precluded appraisal | Association argued discovery limitations prevented it from exposing insurer breaches and thus appraisal was premature | Insurer argued the denied discovery was not a prerequisite to appraisal and appraisal process itself will allow exchange of cost-supporting information | Court viewed interlocutory discovery denial as outside scope of appeal and concluded the limited discovery did not bar appraisal; appraisal proceeds |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 172 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (party seeking appraisal must comply with post-loss obligations)
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Romay, 744 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (discusses meaningful exchange of information as a condition precedent)
- Command Sec. Corp. v. Moffa, 84 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reasonable time to perform where no time-is-of-the-essence clause)
- Rios v. Tri-State Insurance Co., 714 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (appraiser impartiality and disclosure approach endorsed)
- Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012) (standards for certiorari review of interlocutory discovery orders)
- Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Branco, 148 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (discusses disqualification where fiduciary duties undermine disinterested appraiser requirement)