Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 2, 2021 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Water damage — Insurer’s election to repair — Appraisal — Voided endorsements — Material breach — Error to deny insurer’s motion to compel appraisal based on finding that insurer’s failure to provide water mitigation services after electing to do so was a material breach of the policy which caused prejudice to the insureds and discharged them of any further contractual duties under preferred contract endorsement, including appraisal — Insurer’s election to repair created a new repair contract under which insurer was bound to perform repairs within a reasonable time — Insurer’s failure to provide water mitigation services was not a breach that voided or discharged insureds from appraisal provision in the policy — Rather, mitigation was subsumed within the duty to repair, and insurer’s failure to mitigate was relevant only to the cost to repair the property — Because scope of loss is in dispute and insurer demanded appraisal pursuant to appraisal provision in endorsement, insurer is entitled to appraisal

46 Fla. L. Weekly D2534a

PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PARVIN NOWROOZPOUR and PARVIZ NOWROOZPOUR, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-720. November 24, 2021. Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Keathan B. Frink, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-18-005826 (12). Counsel: Mary Lou Cuellar-Stilo and Mark D. Tinker of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Tampa, and Brett Frankel and Jonathan Sabghir of People’s Trust Insurance Company, Deerfield Beach, for appellant. Lisa A. Riddle, John W. McLuskey and John E. Hughes, III, of McLuskey, McDonald & Hughes, P.A., Miami, for appellees.

(PER CURIAM.) People’s Trust Insurance Company (“People’s Trust”) appeals a nonfinal order denying its motion to compel appraisal. People’s Trust raises two issues on appeal. In the first issue, People’s Trust argues the order is per se reversible because it was authored by opposing counsel, contains findings and rulings the presiding judge never made, and decides matters not raised or noticed for hearing. On this issue, we affirm without further comment. In the second issue, People’s Trust argues that its failure to provide water mitigation services, after electing to do so, did not void the appraisal provision contained in the policy. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand for entry of an order compelling appraisal.

By way of background, Parvin Nowroozpour and Parviz Nowroozpour (“the insureds”) own a property insured by People’s Trust. The policy includes a Preferred Contract Endorsement (“the endorsement”). The endorsement provides that, in the event of a covered loss, People’s Trust may, at its option, repair the property. The endorsement further includes a mitigation provision providing that “[i]f a peril causing a loss and related damage are covered . . . and repairs are necessary to prevent the property from further damage,” the insureds must notify People’s Trust before authorizing or commencing repairs so that People’s Trust may select Rapid Response Team, LLC (“RRT”) to make the covered reasonable repairs. The endorsement also contains an appraisal provision stating that, in the event People’s Trust elects to repair the property and the insureds and People’s Trust fail to agree on the amount of loss, either party may demand an appraisal as to the amount of loss and the scope of repairs. Under the appraisal provision, once the appraisers set the amount of loss and scope of repairs, the scope of repairs shall establish the work to be performed and completed by RRT.

On September 10, 2017, the property suffered water damage as a result of Hurricane Irma. The next day, the insureds’ daughter reported the water damage to People’s Trust over the phone. During the phone call, People’s Trust stated it would send RRT to the property within 48 to 72 hours. It is undisputed that People’s Trust failed to send RRT to the insureds’ property and that RRT never provided any water mitigation services at the property. Because of that failure, the property further deteriorated and sustained significant additional damage.

On September 17, 2017, People’s Trust’s field adjuster inspected the property and prepared an estimate of repairs in the amount of $781. On October 3, 2017, People’s Trust sent a letter to the insureds accepting coverage for the loss but stating the damage did not exceed the policy’s deductible. The letter also stated People’s Trust was electing to use RRT to repair the property once a determination of damages was made, advised the insureds of their appraisal rights, and requested submission of a sworn proof of loss.

On February 1, 2018, the insureds sent a sworn proof of loss totaling $105,596. On March 13, 2018, the insureds filed a complaint against People’s Trust, alleging breach of contract for its failure to pay the entirety of the loss and damage to the property. One day later, People’s Trust acknowledged receipt of the sworn proof of loss, acknowledged a dispute existed over the scope of repairs, and demanded appraisal of the amount of loss and scope of repairs in accordance with the appraisal provision in the endorsement.

People’s Trust then filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims. In the first count of the counterclaim, People’s Trust sought specific performance to enforce its right to an appraisal and right of repair. Consistent with this counterclaim, People’s Trust thereafter filed a motion to compel appraisal.

After an evidentiary hearing on the motion to compel appraisal, the trial court entered an order denying the motion with prejudice. The trial court found that People’s Trust’s failure to provide water mitigation services was a material breach of the policy which caused prejudice to the insureds and discharged them from any further contractual duties under the endorsement, including appraisal, repair by People’s Trust’s preferred contractor, and payment of the policy’s hurricane deductible. This appeal follows.

When the facts are undisputed, an appellate court reviews an order denying a motion to compel appraisal de novo. People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 263 So. 3d 231, 233-34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

On appeal, People’s Trust argues that its election to repair created a new repair contract pursuant to Drew v. Mobile USA Insurance Co., 920 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), and under this new contract, it was bound to repair the property to its pre-loss condition within a reasonable time. People’s Trust also argues that its failure to provide water mitigation services did not discharge the insureds from the appraisal provision contained in the endorsement. We agree.

“[W]hen the insurer makes its election to repair, that election is binding upon the insured and creates a new contract under which the insurer is bound to [perform repairs] within a reasonable time.” Drew, 920 So. 2d at 835 (quoting Travelers Indem. Co. v. Parkman, 300 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)). “Therefore, in a situation where the option to repair has been invoked, the insured and the insurer would become parties to a separate repair contract wherein the insurer is obligated to perform repairs which will adequately return the insured property to its pre-loss condition.” Vainberg v. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 321 So. 3d 231, 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (citing Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 732, 739 (Fla. 2002)). “Where the insurer breaches this new contract to repair, it becomes liable for the damages proximately caused by this breach.” Drew, 920 So. 2d at 835.

Here, pursuant to Drew, a repair contract was formed when People’s Trust completed an inspection of the property and sent the October 3, 2017 letter to the insureds notifying them of its election to repair the property to its pre-loss condition. Therefore, People’s Trust is obligated to perform repairs to return the property to its pre-loss condition.

People’s Trust’s failure to provide water mitigation services to prevent further damage was not a breach that voided or discharged the insureds from the appraisal provision in the policy. Rather, mitigation was subsumed within the duty to repair, and People’s Trust’s failure to mitigate is relevant only to the cost to repair the property. See Drew, 920 So. 2d at 835 (explaining that, when an option to repair has been invoked but the repairs are not adequately performed, an insured may be entitled to damages above the policy limits caused by the inadequate repairs).

People’s Trust additionally argues that because there is a scope of loss dispute and it properly demanded appraisal pursuant to the appraisal provision in the endorsement, it is entitled to appraisal. We agree.

“[W]hen the insurer admits that there is a covered loss, but there is a disagreement on the amount of loss, it is for the appraisers to arrive at the amount to be paid.” Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So. 2d 1021, 1025 (Fla. 2002) (quoting Gonzalez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 805 So. 2d 814, 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)).

Here, People’s Trust admitted there was a covered loss in its October 3, 2017 letter to the insureds. On March 14, 2018, after receiving the insureds’ sworn proof of loss, People’s Trust acknowledged that a dispute existed over the scope of repairs and demanded appraisal in accordance with the appraisal provision in the endorsement. Therefore, appraisal is appropriate to determine the amount of loss and scope of repairs to be made to the property. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order compelling appraisal.

Reversed and Remanded. (MAY, DAMOORGIAN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.)* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — All-risk policy — Coverage — Cracking damage to home caused by blasting vibrations from nearby rock quarry — Exclusions — Earth or soil movement — Wear and tear, marking, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion — Concurrent causes — Trial court did not err in denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict based on policy’s exclusion of coverage for earth sinking, rising, or shifting or soil movement resulting from blasting — Insurer’s position was based upon mischaracterization of testimony by insureds’ expert, who was steadfast in his opinion that none of the damage to home resulted from soil or earth movement, but was instead the result of shock waves from blasting that caused the house to shake — Based upon competing expert testimony, jury could have reasonably concluded that it was shock waves, not soil or earth movement, that caused damage — Jury instructions — Covered and excluded perils — Concurrent cause doctrine — Trial court did not err by instructing jury that land shock waves from blasting in combination with wear and tear, marring, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion was not excluded under policy — Although policy’s earth movement exclusion contained an explicit anti-concurrent cause provision, this provision would have come into play only if jury had first determined that one of the causes of damage was earth movement — Judgment in favor of insureds affirmed
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Work product — Claims files — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by compelling insurer to produce documents from its claims and underwriting files — Documents in claims and underwriting files are not automatically work product — Insurer’s assertion of work-product privilege was overly broad, and insurer did not argue or prove that the requested documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation
  • Wrongful death — Medical malpractice — Vicarious liability — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Allegation that defendant, through its president, committed acts of intentional misconduct or gross negligence by assigning a nurse practitioner to provide after-hours care to a patient with highly complex problems that were beyond nurse practitioner’s permissible scope of practice — Trial court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to assert claim for punitive damages — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on intentional conduct where evidence was insufficient to show that defendant’s president either knew or otherwise intended for nurse practitioner to independently order medical treatment for patient outside the scope of nurse practitioner’s practice without consulting president — Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that defendant’s president condoned or ratified nurse practitioner’s independent treatment with actual knowledge of a high probability that doing so would result in additional harm or death to patient — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on gross negligence where facts of case did not show that defendant, through its president or nurse practitioner, evinced a reckless or conscious disregard of or indifference to human life
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982