54 So. 3d 578
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mango Hill filed a post-Wilma loss claim under a Citizens policy; Citizens paid some repairs.
- Mango Hill later retained a public adjuster, demanded additional funds, and submitted proofs, reports, and an Oath examination for appraisal.
- Citizens refused to proceed to appraisal until it received additional documents and information regarding the new claim.
- Mango Hill sued in Feb 2010, alleging it satisfied post-loss obligations; Citizens denied coverage and claimed noncompliance.
- Mango Hill moved to compel appraisal; Citizens argued appraisal should not proceed until post-loss compliance issues were resolved.
- The trial court granted compelled appraisal; the court of appeal reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on post-loss compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-loss compliance must be resolved before appraisal. | Mango Hill argues compliance relates to coverage, not the appraisal trigger. | Citizens contends post-loss duties must be fulfilled before appraisal can be compelled. | Reversed; need evidentiary hearing on compliance. |
| Whether an arbitrable issue exists that justifies appraisal against a backdrop of potential coverage questions. | There is a dispute ripe for appraisal once proof of loss and documents are provided. | No arbitrable issue exists until post-loss obligations are satisfied and information exchanged. | Remand for an evidentiary hearing on arbitrability. |
| Whether the trial court has discretion to control the order of appraisal versus coverage determinations. | Trial court can determine order on dual-track basis after ripeness. | Discretion must be exercised in light of ripe arbitrable issues. | Discretion acknowledged; remand for ripeness determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So.2d 1021 (Fla.2002) (coverage versus damages distinction for appraisal)
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So.3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (trial court may manage order on dual track basis)
- U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So.2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (no disagreement exists without meaningful information exchange)
- First Home Ins. Co. v. Fleurimond, 36 So.3d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (insurer’s post-loss obligations must be addressed before appraisal)
- Galeria Villas Condominium Ass’n, 48 So.3d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (ripeness of appraisal before determining coverage matters)
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So.3d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (evidentiary hearing when insured cooperates or disputes post-loss compliance)
- Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Maytin, 51 So.3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (necessity of evidentiary hearing for post-loss compliance)