Seth B. Altman

Heritage Property & Casualty appealed an order compelling a commercial Hurricane Irma claim to appraisal. Heritage contended appraisal was premature because an evidentiary hearing was first required to determine whether Sunset Villas satisfied post-loss conditions. The Third District Court of Appeal agreed with Heritage and reversed.

Following Hurricane Irma, Sunset Villas filed a claim with Heritage, which found coverage but determined the damages were below the deductible. Sunset Villas submitted an amended proof of loss. After requesting additional information, Heritage refused the demand for appraisal. Sunset Villas sued for breach of contract and, during litigation, filed a supplemental claim. It again moved to compel appraisal. Heritage opposed the motion, arguing that an evidentiary hearing was first required to determine whether Sunset Villas satisfied post-loss obligations. The trial court ordered appraisal.

On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal held that, prior to ordering appraisal, a trial court must render a preliminary determination as to whether the demand is ripe under the policy (citing, Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass’n 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing, Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Galeria Villas Condo. Ass’n Inc., 48 So. 3d 188, 191-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)). The court further held that it and other courts “have determined that there is no disagreement over the value of the loss until post-loss conditions are satisfied and the insurer has a reasonable opportunity to adjust the claim” (citing, Galeria Villas Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 48 So. 3d at 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).) 

Since Heritage and Sunset Villas disputed whether Sunset Villas satisfied its post-loss obligations, the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to render a preliminary determination as to whether appraisal was ripe. If appraisal was ripe, the court would have discretion to control the order in which an appraisal and coverage determinations proceed (citing, Galeria Villas Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 48 So. 3d at 191-92). 

Reversed and remanded. 

---

 

_{Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – June 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}