Panjikaran v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co., 77 So. 3d 1278

Panjikaran's home was insured by State Farm and Hurricane Charley damaged it in August 2004, with State Farm acknowledging coverage.
Over four years, State Farm disbursed policy limits of Coverage A to Panjikaran to repair the home.
A dispute arose over Building Ordinance or Law Coverage Endorsement, which can add up to 25% of Coverage A; appraisal was demanded by State Farm.
Panjikaran sued on February 4, 2010 seeking declaratory relief on appraisal and breach of contract, alleging State Farm refused to tender any amount under Ordinance/Law Coverage.
State Farm moved for dismissal and for summary judgment, arguing the dispute was about the amount of loss, not coverage; no affidavits were filed.
The trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm; the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding a genuine material-fact dispute over whether the issue was coverage denial or amount of loss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the summary judgment was proper given competing facts on coverage vs amount	Panjikaran contends the dispute is over coverage denial, not amount.	State Farm contends the dispute concerns the amount of loss requiring appraisal; suit premature.	Remanded; genuine issue of material fact prevents summary judgment.
Whether appraisal governs the dispute or the court should resolve coverage first	Appraisal not warranted if coverage denial is the issue.	Appraisal is proper when amount of loss is disputed.	Remand to determine the controlling issue; summary judgment improper.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Colon, 880 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (summary-judgment standard; de novo review on appeal from judgment)
Pamperin v. Interlake Cos., Inc., 634 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (summary judgment requires no genuine issue of material fact)
Hodges v. Citrus World, Inc., 850 So.2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (appellate court indulges inferences in favor of nonmovant on summary judgment)