125 So. 3d 846
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- River Manor Condominium Association sued Citizens Property Insurance to confirm an appraisal award after Hurricane Wilma.
- Appraisers allocated total losses to Buildings A, B, C and exterior common elements; exterior elements were within Citizens’ exclusions.
- Citizens argued section 718.111(ll)(b) creates mandatory coverage that conflicts with policy exclusions, requiring conformance amendments.
- Trial court granted summary judgment concluding the statute imposed the coverage, awarding appraisal amounts for excluded items.
- Citizens challenged several line-item awards as accord/settlement issues, duplications, or unit-owner responsibilities; the court refused to adjudicate some objections.
- The appellate court reversed in part, holding the statute does not impose carrier-wide mandatory coverage and remanded with guidance on deductions and potential pre-appraisal agreements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 718.111(ll)(b) create mandatory coverage conflicting with Citizens' exclusions? | Citizens: conformance clauses require amendments to remove exclusions in conflict with the statute. | River Manor: statute imposes broad mandatory coverage and conflicts with exclusions. | Statute does not impose mandatory carrier coverage; exclusions do not conflict. |
| Was summary judgment improper for Citizens’ objections to line items not adjudicated? | Citizens: court should resolve accord, duplication, and unit-owner responsibility defenses. | River Manor: appraisers determine loss amount; court should not re-litigate items. | Summary judgment improper for some objections; pre-appraisal defenses require adjudication. |
| Should the appraisal award be reduced by amounts already paid or excluded items under policy terms? | Citizens: awarded amounts for excluded exterior elements and duplicate or settled items should be deducted. | River Manor: appraisers determined amount of loss; deductions are for court to decide elsewhere. | Remand with directions to deduct previously paid amounts and exterior-excluded amounts; otherwise uphold remaining. |
| Are unit-owner interior improvements properly not charged to the River Manor award? | Citizens: interior improvements (baseboards, light fixtures) are unit owners’ responsibility. | River Manor: policy coverage should determine responsibility; removal requires coverage questions. | Affirmed the determination that coverage issues are for court, not for appraisal as to amount. |
| Did the court properly construe conformance and coverage in light of modern insurance regulation? | Citizens: statutory conformance clauses require alignment with state statutes to avoid coverage misalignment. | River Manor: the statutes imply broader coverage requirements. | Court should read statute as a cohesive whole; not to impose blanket carrier obligations; reverse for the coverage portion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graber v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (interpretation of policy language is a matter of law)
- Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2002) (coverage vs. amount of loss delineation)
- Licea, 685 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 1996) (appraisal panel determines amount of loss)
- Florida Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Contract-Point Fla. Parks, LLC, 986 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 2008) (read statute as a cohesive whole)
- State v. Jett, 626 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1993) (statutory interpretation caution; plain language vs. cohesiveness)
- Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 2000) (statutory interpretation in context of surrounding sections)
- Badaraco v. Suncoast Towers v. Assocs., 676 So.2d 502 (Fla.3d DCA 1996) (read statute as a cohesive act; avoid absurd results)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (plain meaning not applied when absurd results arise)
- Roberts v. Nine Island Ave. Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 126 So.3d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (best efforts to obtain insurance where coverage not otherwise available)
- Sherman v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 475 F. App’x 733 (11th Cir. 2012) (public policy and contract interpretation considerations)
- Graber v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (policy interpretation under Florida law)