EXPRESS DAMAGE RESTORATION LLC, etc. v. FIRST COMMUNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 314 So.3d 532

Express Damage Restoration (assignee) performed water-mitigation work after 2017 water damage and invoiced the insurer $45,924.67; insurer paid $11,234.31 and sought appraisal for the remainder.
Assignee sued (initially breach of contract, then added declaratory relief) seeking a declaration that mitigation charges are not part of the policy's 'amount of loss' and thus are not subject to appraisal, and that insurer breached the assignment by not naming assignee as payee.
Insurer moved to dismiss as unripe and alternatively to compel appraisal, arguing the policy required appraisal and full compliance before suit; insurer opposed the assignee's summary-judgment motion and asked the court not to consider it.
Trial court concluded the phrase 'amount of loss' includes mitigation charges, held appraisal applied, and dismissed the complaint (reserving attorney-fee jurisdiction) while refusing to consider the assignee’s summary-judgment motion.
On appeal the court held the trial court procedurally erred by resolving the policy-construction question on a motion to dismiss instead of denying dismissal and allowing declaratory relief or resolving the issue on proper motion/briefing; reversal and remand ordered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mitigation charges are part of the policy's 'amount of loss' and thus subject to appraisal	Mitigation invoices are not 'amount of loss' and thus not subject to appraisal (citing Weiss/Delisfort)	Charges are encompassed by 'amount of loss' and appraisal applies	Court did not decide merits; held complaint stated a declaratory cause and dismissal on this ground was procedural error; remanded
Whether trial court could resolve the policy-construction question on a motion to dismiss	Court should enter declaratory judgment or decide assignee's summary-judgment motion on the merits	Suit unripe because appraisal required; dismissal appropriate until appraisal	Trial court erred by construing policy on motion to dismiss; dismissal reversed and remanded for proper declaratory proceedings or appropriate motion practice
Whether insurer breached the assignment or waived appraisal by paying benefits to insured instead of naming assignee	Payment to insured and failure to name assignee as payee breached assignment and/or waived appraisal rights	No waiver; appraisal still available	Appellate court expressed no view on merits; remanded for further proceedings to resolve this issue

Weiss v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 497 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (addresses whether assignee invoices fall outside appraisal)
Delisfort v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 785 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (policy-construction issues not governed by appraisal)
Royal Selections, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 687 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (trial court may not decide merits of declaratory action on motion to dismiss)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Emery, 579 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reversal where coverage question requiring policy construction was decided improperly on dismissal)
Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (orders dismissing declaratory counts reviewed de novo)
Ribaya v. Bd. of Trs., 162 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (distinguishes de novo review from abuse-of-discretion in gatekeeping dismissals)
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Unlimited Restoration Specialists, Inc., 84 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (appraisal/wavier issues in assignee recovery cases)
S. Fla. Coastal Elec., Inc. v. Treasures on Bay II Condo Ass’n, 89 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (a party may not take inconsistent positions to the prejudice of an adversary)