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
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 8, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Property — Hurricane damage — Appraisal — Insurer did not waive right to appraisal by choosing to cover only part of loss claimed by insured or by abating original appraisal after being served with insured’s lawsuit — Insurer did not actively participate in lawsuit by moving to compel appraisal after suit was filed — Insurer did not engage in conduct inconsistent with right to appraisal by ordering appraiser to stop working on the appraisal when it was already a month into the process — Trial court erred in denying motion to compel appraisal

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2274a

PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. FARUA PORTUONDO, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-266. L.T. Case No. 19-22640. October 7, 2020. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge. Counsel: Beck Law, P.A., and Joshua S. Beck (Boca Raton); Brett R. Frankel, Jonathan Sabghir and Robert B. Gertzman (Deerfield Beach), for appellant. Greenspoon Marder, LLP and John H. Pelzer (Fort Lauderdale); Geyer Fuxa Tyler, PLLC, Jeremy Tyler, Andy Fuxa and Maria Fuxa (Sunrise), for appellee.

(Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ.)

(FERNANDEZ, J.) People’s Trust Insurance Company (“People’s Trust”) appeals the non-final Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel Appraisal. Concluding that People’s Trust did not waive its right to appraisal by either 1) choosing to extend only partial coverage to the losses claimed by the insured, or 2) abating the appraisal process after insured served People’s Trust with a breach of contract lawsuit, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant People’s Trust motion to compel appraisal.

On September 10, 2017, plaintiff Farua Portuondo’s (“Portuondo”) property was damaged by Hurricane Irma. Portuondo reported the damage to People’s Trust on December 7, 2018. In response to the claim, People’s Trust agreed to cover the interior damage but not the damage to the roof. Disagreeing with the scope of covered repairs, Portuondo filed suit against People’s Trust on July 30, 2019. People’s Trust demanded appraisal on August 26, 2019, and the appraisal process subsequently began. Upon being served with the lawsuit on September 16, 2019, midway through the appraisal process, People’s Trust instructed its adjuster to stop work on the appraisal and filed Motions to Compel Appraisal, to Compel Defendant’s Right to Repair, and to Compel Payment of the Policy’s Hurricane Deductible, together with a Memorandum of Law.

Portuondo filed a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations on December 10, 2019, to which People’s Trust responded on January 2, 2020. On February 5, 2020, the trial court denied People’s Trust’s Motion to Compel Appraisal without including the court’s reasoning in the order. Our review of the hearing transcript, suggests that the judge denied the motion because the insurer provided partial coverage, which did not include coverage of the damaged roof. The court stated in relevant part:

The Court: Is there a roof issue as to coverage?

Mr. Hodges: The roof will be covered in appraisal. The appraiser . . . .

The Court: Is the roof covered and the only issue is come back . . . .

Mr. Hodges: They think that the roof is covered. We don’t think that the roof is covered, but it’s an issue for appraisal.

The Court: Your motion is denied. Have a wonderful day.

People’s Trust appealed this order the following day on February 6, 2020.

The standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to compel appraisal is de novo. People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 263 So. 3d 231, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (finding that the application of law to the facts by the trial court is reviewed de novo); see also Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Sorgenfrei, 278 So. 3d 930, 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). Furthermore, the trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for competent substantial evidence. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc. v. Castilla, 18 So. 3d 703, 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Portuondo argues that People’s Trust waived its right to appraisal by choosing to cover only part of the loss claimed by Portuondo. We disagree. This Court has found that an insurer’s motion to compel appraisal should be granted when an insurer decides to repair a covered loss and when the parties do not agree on the scope of repairs. See Baptiste v. People’s Tr. Ins. Co., 299 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). The “governing provision” in Baptiste is the same appraisal provision included in Portuondo’s policy. Also, as in Baptiste, Portuondo and People’s Trust disagreed on the “amount of loss” and “scope of repairs,” specifically whether the roof was covered and whether the deductible was met. Additionally, this Court has granted insurer’s right to appraisal when the insurer “has not wholly denied coverage,” leaving the “amount-of-loss question for the appraisal panel.” Garcia, 263 So. 3d at 238. As in Garcia, the insurer here covered interior damage resulting from damage to the roof in Portuondo’s home but excluded coverage for the roof itself because it was not covered by the policy. Applying this Court’s precedent to the facts here, we conclude that the trial court’s order denying People’s Trust’s Motion to Compel Appraisal must be reversed.

Portuondo claims that People’s Trust waived its right to appraisal by abating the original appraisal after being served with the lawsuit. We disagree. A party’s right to appraisal is waived when the “party actively participates in a lawsuit or engages in conduct inconsistent with the right to appraisal.” Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc. v. Martucci, 152 So. 3d 759, 761 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Maroulis, 153 So. 3d 298, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)). People’s Trust did not actively participate in Portuondo’s lawsuit; rather, People’s Trust moved to compel appraisal after Portuondo filed the lawsuit.

Portuondo further argues that People’s Trust “engage[d] in conduct inconsistent with the right to appraisal” by ordering its appraiser to stop working on the appraisal when it was already a month into the process. Id. We disagree. Portuondo does not cite to any caselaw that renders this action inconsistent with the right to appraisal. Additionally, this Court and the Florida Supreme Court have demonstrated their preference for appraisal in situations where there is a challenge to the amount of loss covered by the insurer. Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass’n 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So. 2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 2002)).

Thus, because People’s Trust’s right to appraisal was not only preserved but preferred in this situation, we find that the trial court erred in denying People’s Trust’s Motion to Compel Appraisal. Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand with instructions to grant the motion to compel appraisal.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Winn-Dixie, website, customers, prescription, place of public accommodation, coupons, refills, privileges, disabled, advantages, accommodations, visually-impaired, auxiliary, public accommodation, inaccessible, barrier, offerings, sighted, majority opinion, intangible, enjoyment, locator, rewards, card, district court, facilities, shopping, software, communicate, in-store – The difficulties caused by the customer’s inability to access much of the store’s website constituted a concrete and particularized injury that was not conjectural or hypothetical, and would continue if the website remained inaccessible; [2]-The statutory language in Title III of the ADA defining “public accommodation” was unambiguous and clear, and public accommodations were limited to actual, physical places, and websites were not a place of public accommodation under the statute; [3]-The store’s website did not constitute an intangible barrier to the customer’s ability to access and enjoy fully the physical grocery store; [4]-Absent congressional action that broadened the definition of “places of public accommodation” to include websites, the appellate court could not extend ADA liability to the facts presented.
  • Civil rights — Employment discrimination — Pharmacist employed by Department of Veterans Affairs brought action against Secretary, alleging that her managers at VA medical center discriminated against her based on her gender and age, retaliated against her because she engaged in protected activity, and subjected her to hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act — Retaliation — Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires personnel actions to be made free from any discrimination — Supreme Court’s decision in pharmacist’s case, which held that federal-sector provision of ADEA did not require plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of a challenged personnel action, undermined to the point of abrogation Eleventh Circuit’s prior panel precedent holding that Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires but-for causation — Standard that Supreme Court articulated for claims under ADEA’s federal-sector provision controls cases arising under Title VII’s nearly identical federal-sector provision — Retaliatory hostile work environment — An actionable federal-sector Title VII retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim must describe conduct that rises to the level of personnel actions and must be evaluated under “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” standard rather than the more stringent “severe or pervasive” standard
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable, related, and necessary medical treatment — Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Opposing affidavit — Trial court abused its discretion in granting motion to strike affidavit of independent medical examiner based on plaintiff’s claim that affidavit “baldly repudiated” affiant’s deposition testimony regarding relationship between injuries and accident and medical necessity of chiropractic treatment — Because affiant’s testimony raised genuine issue of material fact, as it clearly conflicted with testimony of treating chiropractor, order granting summary judgment in favor of assignee/medical provider reversed
  • Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Jurors — Peremptory challenge — Race neutral explanation — Genuineness — New trial — Evidence — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on its improper denial of plaintiff’s peremptory challenge of juror — Trial court failed to apply proper legal standard in denying plaintiff’s peremptory strike of juror where it failed to recognize the presumption that plaintiff was exercising her peremptory challenge in a nondiscriminatory manner and hold defendants to their burden of proving purposeful discrimination — Fact that juror was sole African American juror left on the panel is, standing alone, insufficient to override a genuine race-neutral challenge — Trial court erred in granting a new trial based on its determination that verdict finding one of the defendants 100% liable for the fatal accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence — Order shows that trial court improperly re-weighed the evidence and acted as a seventh juror in doing so — Trial court erred in permitting jury to hear evidence related to defendant’s driving history where not only was the evidence unduly prejudicial, but the citations bore no similarity to the circumstances at issue and had no relevance to defendant’s alleged negligence at the time of the accident — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion notwithstanding verdict which asserted that defendant should not be liable for the total amount of damages to co-defendant’s tractor-trailer — A new-trial order and order for judgment notwithstanding verdict are mutually inconsistent and may not be granted simultaneously unless granted on the express condition that the order granting the judgment notwithstanding verdict only becomes effective if the order granting new trial is reversed on appeal, which did not happen in this case
  • Workers’ compensation — Prosthetic devices — Limitation of actions — Claimant who had screws and rods inserted in her spine as a result of an injury occurring in 1990 — Judge of compensation claims erred in rejecting employer/carrier’s statute of limitations defense to claim for pain management and a replacement mechanical bed — While applicable 1989 version of workers’ compensation law contained an exemption from its statute of limitations to the right for remedial attention relating to the insertion or attachment of a prosthetic device, there is no evidence that either the prosthesis, or the surgery required to insert it, is causing the need for the requested benefits as opposed to the underlying condition that necessitated the prosthesis in the first place — Fact that claimant may have a prosthetic device is not, standing alone, sufficient to prevent statute of limitations from accruing

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 © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982