Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, 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 Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

March 18, 2021 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Because insurer did not wholly deny coverage, appraisal was appropriate and should not have been denied — Court rejects insured’s waiver and ripeness arguments — Insurer did all it needed to do before demanding appraisal and did not act inconsistently with its appraisal right

46 Fla. L. Weekly D582a

CASTLE KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARK FISCHER, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-1621. March 16, 2021. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Frances S. King, Judge. Counsel: Scot E. Samis of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, St. Petersburg; David Molhem of Molhem & Fraley, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Chad A. Barr and Virginia E. Davis Horton of the Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for Appellee.

(OSTERHAUS, J.) Castle Key Insurance Company appeals a nonfinal order denying its motion to abate litigation and compel appraisal. Castle Key argues that appraisal is appropriate because it accepted partial coverage on the insured’s claim. We agree and reverse.

Mark Fischer filed a claim with his insurer, Castle Key, after his Panama City property sustained damage from Hurricane Michael. Castle Key tendered a check admitting coverage for some damage while declining to cover damage to fences, trees, and landscape attached to the property. Fischer tendered a proof of loss much higher than Castle Key’s estimate, and Castle Key demanded appraisal pursuant to the homeowner’s insurance policy. Fischer then sued Castle Key, and Castle Key moved to abate the litigation and compel appraisal. The trial court denied the motion.

We review a nonfinal order denying a motion to compel appraisal de novo. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, 268 So. 3d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (citing MKL Enters. LLC v. Am. Traditions Ins. Co., 265 So. 3d 730, 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)).

Here, Castle Key paid a portion of the claim by tendering a check to Fischer but denied coverage for other damage to the property. Like our decisions in Sheppard and MKL Enterprises, the insurer did not “wholly deny” coverage, and thus appraisal is appropriate and should not have been denied. See Sheppard, 268 So. 3d at 1007 (reversing trial court’s denial of motion to compel appraisal where insurer paid for water damage but declined to cover costs of repairing leaky pipes that caused the water damage); MKL Enters., 265 So. 3d at 731 (finding insurer did not “wholly deny” coverage because it tendered a check, admitting coverage for some damage while declining to cover all repair costs).

We also reject Fischer’s waiver and ripeness arguments. Castle Key did all it needed to do before demanding appraisal and did not act inconsistently with its appraisal right. It promptly investigated Fischer’s claim, partially accepted coverage, and tendered a check. Later, it sent a mediation notice at the first indication of a dispute between the parties after receiving a letter of representation from Fischer’s counsel. See State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lime Bay Condo., Inc., 187 So. 3d 932, 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (recognizing that the mediation notice requirement in § 627.7015(2), Florida Statutes, ripens only after the insurer is put on notice that there is a dispute involving a material issue of fact); People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Lavadie, 306 So. 3d 285, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (same). Castle Key then demanded appraisal within one week after the filing of Fischer’s proof of loss showing the parties to be far apart on the issue of the amount of the loss.

Accordingly, we REVERSE the trial court’s order denying Castle Key’s motion to abate litigation and discovery and compel appraisal and REMAND with instructions to enter an order granting Castle Key’s motion. (B.L. THOMAS and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.)* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

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 © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982