MENDOTA INSURANCE COMPANY vs AT HOME AUTO GLASS, LLC A/A/O SHABRIA BROWN, 348 So.3d 641

Mendota insured Shabria Brown, whose windshield was replaced by At Home Auto Glass, LLC (Home Auto Glass); Brown assigned her insurance claim to Home Auto Glass.
Home Auto Glass submitted a claim for $2,175.46; Mendota paid $899.91 and requested appraisal if parties could not agree on amount owed.
Home Auto Glass sued Mendota after disagreement; Mendota moved to compel appraisal under the policy appraisal clause, seeking appraisal only on the monetary amount owed (not the physical extent of damage).
The trial court denied the motion, concluding the policy’s definition of “loss” equated to physical damage and appraisal was improper where physical damage was not disputed.
On appeal, the court dismissed Mendota’s challenge to the denial of the motion to dismiss as nonappealable but exercised jurisdiction to review denial of the motion to compel appraisal and reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability of denial of motion to dismiss	Trial-court order denying dismissal is appealable (implicit)	That part of the order is not appealable	Dismissed appeal of motion to dismiss as not appealable
Whether appraisal applies when only monetary amount of payment is disputed	“Loss” means physical damage only; no appraisal when extent of physical damage is undisputed	"Amount of the loss" includes monetary cost to repair/replace; appraisal covers disagreement on amount owed	Appraisal may be compelled; "amount of the loss" includes cost to repair/replace and extent of covered damage
Whether policy language is ambiguous about “loss”	If ambiguous, interpret against drafter; ambiguity favors insured so no appraisal	Language reasonably includes repair/replacement costs; reading otherwise renders clause meaningless	No ambiguity that prevents appraisal; construing clause to exclude repair cost would make appraisal clause meaningless
Public policy, cost-doctrine, and constitutional challenges to appraisal clause	Appraisal provision creates economic deterrent, violates public policy, fees statute, jury right, access to courts, due process	Appraisal clauses are valid; fees can be awarded post-appraisal; appraisal is a long-recognized mechanism	Rejected public-policy and constitutional challenges; appraisal clause valid and enforceable

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Licea, 685 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1996) (appraisal includes determinations of cost of repair or replacement)
Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2002) (when coverage admitted but amount disputed, appraisers determine amount to be paid)
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. River Manor Condo. Ass’n, 125 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (appraisers determine amount of loss; court decides coverage issues)
U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (appraisal addresses actual cash value and amount of loss; issues narrowly restricted)
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Cannon Range Partners, Inc., 162 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (appraiser determines extent of covered damage and amount to be paid)
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2000) (policy construction: read as whole and interpret ambiguities against drafter)
First Floridian Auto & Home Ins. Co. v. Myrick, 969 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (attorney’s fees may be awarded where claim resolved through appraisal)
Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011) (limitation on appealability of certain nonfinal orders)