285 So.3d 958
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Insurer appealed a final judgment awarding relief to its insured; the sole issue was whether an insured’s public adjuster may serve as the insured’s “disinterested appraiser” under the policy’s appraisal clause.
- Two weeks after water damage, the insured contracted with a public adjuster who was entitled to 20% of any recovery and received an assignment of a portion of the insurance proceeds as security for that fee.
- The public adjuster inspected the property, submitted the claim materials to the insurer, and later sent a letter naming himself as the insured’s appraiser after the insurer demanded appraisal.
- The insurer objected that the public adjuster’s prior conduct and contingent-fee/assignment arrangement meant he was not “disinterested” as required by the policy; the insured sought declaratory relief and the circuit court ruled for the insured.
- The Fourth District reversed, holding that on these facts the public adjuster was not disinterested because of his financial stake plus his prior role in handling the claim; the case was remanded for judgment for the insurer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an insured’s public adjuster who has a contingency-fee/assignment and who previously adjusted/submitted the claim can serve as the insured’s “qualified, disinterested appraiser” | Insured: the public adjuster can serve; disclosure suffices and earlier Third DCA precedent permits contingent-fee appraisers | Insurer: the adjuster’s contingency fee, assignment, and prior role create a direct financial and positional interest that disqualifies him as “disinterested” | The Fourth DCA: reversed — on these facts the public adjuster was not disinterested and thus could not serve as the insured’s appraiser |
Key Cases Cited
- Rios v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 714 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (addressed definition of “independent/neutral” appraiser and relied on arbitration ethics disclosure regime)
- Galvis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 721 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (brief Third DCA decision following Rios on appraiser neutrality)
- Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Branco, 148 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (held attorney/public-agent with loyalty or financial ties cannot be a “disinterested” appraiser)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 833 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2002) (appraisal is a contractual process distinct from arbitration)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Licea, 685 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1996) (appraisal determines amount of loss; coverage issues remain for courts)
- Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 466 N.W.2d 257 (Iowa 1991) (contingent-fee arrangement rendered appraiser interested due to direct financial stake)