.

Case Law Alerts

District court finds that whether suit is filed before or after the invocation of the appraisal process is not determinative of the insured’s right to fees.

People’s Trust Insurance Company v. Polanco, 48 Fla. L Weekly D120 (Fla. Jan. 11, 2023)

January 1, 2023

After receiving a homeowner’s claim for hurricane damage, the defendant investigated the claim and sent the insured its estimate and coverage determination letter. However, since the cost of the covered repairs did not exceed the applicable deductible, no payment was made. Despite failing to provide the defendant with a competing estimate or a sworn proof of loss, two years later the insured filed a suit for breach of insurance contract. In response, the defendant moved to compel appraisal. The policy issued by the defendant required the parties to participate in appraisal to resolve a dispute as to the amount of the claim when requested by either party. An appraisal award was entered in favor of the insured, which included the cost of replacing the roof and repairing the interior water damage. The insured then moved for the trial court to confirm the appraisal award and award attorney’s fees. The trial court awarded attorney’s fees, finding that the insured was forced to file suit because the defendant wrongly denied coverage for the roof. As such, the appraisal award was a direct result of the lawsuit.  

The defendant appealed the ruling to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, which found the trial court incorrectly analyzed the homeowner’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs. In reversing the trial court’s ruling, the appellate court held, the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees incurred by the insured because there was no dispute before the insured filed his breach of insurance contract suit. While the insured argued that suit was necessary for recovery, the court disagreed, stating that whether suit is filed before or after the invocation of the appraisal process is not determinative of the insured’s right to fees. Rather, the right to fees is determined by whether the filing of the suit served a legitimate purpose. Because the insured did not inform the defendant that he disputed its estimate or coverage letter, they were not given the opportunity to compel appraisal until after suit was filed
 

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2032 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.