A Florida federal decide not too long ago wrote the next concerning a dispute over an appraisal:
Under Florida legislation, appraisal necessities in an insurance coverage contract are handled as arbitration provisions, ‘narrowly restricted to the resolution of specific issues of actual cash value and amount of loss.’ Galindo v. ARI Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 771, 776 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So. second 467, 469 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)).1
If you had been to learn this case Order and the cited opinions, the reply to the put up could be “yes.” But not so quick my pal.
Older instances and the logic of them must be checked to see if they’ve been overruled. If the decide who wrote the above opinion reads this weblog, the decide’s legislation clerks might have some explaining to do as a result of newer case legislation is solely opposite to the quoted assertion and the older overruled instances it depends upon:
Nationwide acknowledges Allstate Insurance Company v. Suarez, 833 So.second 762 (Fla.2002), wherein the Florida Supreme Court held that an appraisal provision for property injury in a home-owner’s insurance coverage coverage was not an settlement to arbitrate. Nationwide argues that Suarez didn’t particularly tackle the appealability of an order involving appraisal and factors out that courts have exercised jurisdiction over non-final appeals of orders involving appraisal previous to Suarez. See Delisfort v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 785 So.second 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Intracoastal Ventures Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 540 So.second 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Modregon, 818 So.second 562 (Fla. second DCA 2002); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So.second 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Fla. Select Ins. Co. v. Keelean, 727 So.second 1131 (Fla. second DCA 1999).
Suarez plainly held that an appraisal provision shouldn’t be an settlement to arbitrate. It follows from Suarez that an order granting or denying an appraisal shouldn’t be appealable as an order involving entitlement to arbitration….The instances cited above have accordingly been overruled by Suarez on the problem of appealability of an order involving entitlement to an appraisal.2
The Florida Supreme Court has been adamant that appraisal is to not be handled as arbitration:
It is obvious from a plain studying of the clause that a casual appraisal continuing, not a proper arbitration listening to pursuant to part 682.06, Florida Statutes (1999), was meant and agreed upon by the events in agreeing to the appraisal provisions of the coverage. See Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 735 So.second 587, 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (‘[T]he clause contemplates inspection and valuation by each appraiser individually, not a trial-type hearing.’).
We disapprove of the choices in Sheaffer and Hoenstine, as a result of the appraisal clauses in these instances had been considerably much like the one within the current case, and a plain studying of these clauses reveals that formal arbitration was not contemplated or agreed upon by the events. In Sheaffer, the First District went past the plain which means of the appraisal clause when it thought of that the appraisers must ‘exercise … quasi-judicial authority to resolve the dispute.’….Further, we disapprove of the evaluation that ‘the appraisal provision neither excludes application of the Florida Arbitration Code, nor sets forth procedures inconsistent with the Arbitration Code.’ …Once a trial court docket has decided that the appraisal provisions of a contract of insurance coverage have been correctly invoked, additional proceedings needs to be carried out in accord with these provisions, fairly than by the wholly totally different proceedings contemplated by an settlement to arbitrate.
Thus, we agree with the Third District’s conclusion on this case that ‘the agreement specifically provides for an appraisal. It is difficult to imagine that a formal arbitration hearing was within the contemplation of the parties when entering into the agreement.’…Once the trial court docket on this case discovered that the Suarezes correctly invoked the appraisal clause and directed the events to appraisal proceedings, the umpire accurately adopted the trial court docket’s ruling by refusing to proceed underneath the formal procedures of the Arbitration Code.3
The reply to the put up in “no.” Appraisal shouldn’t be ruled by arbitration in Florida.
While the Florida Supreme Court Justices might have a tough time imagining how a proper arbitration listening to may contemplated, all they must do is learn, Rhode Island Appraisals—The Arbitration Act Applies to Determine the Partiality of Appraisers and Umpires, to learn the way judges in one other state have such creativeness and discover that arbitration does apply to insurance coverage value determinations.
The first rule to find out how an appraisal is meant to be carried out is to find out which state legislation applies. While Florida Supreme Court Justices might not be conscious of it, the readers of this weblog know that appraisal guidelines differ from state to state.
As a last-minute reminder, Steve Badger and yours really will make a presentation concerning the hottest points involving appraisal subsequent week on the IAUA Conference in Houston, Texas. I may also be giving a really inspirational speech you do not need to overlook if you’re within the appraisal or umpire enterprise, which is separate from my joint presentation with Steve Badger. My understanding is that over 120 folks have registered for this occasion and there may be room for less than ten extra. Hope to see you there. Here is the hyperlink.
Thought For The Day
When a topic turns into completely out of date we make it a required course.
—Pete Drucker
1 Baytree v. Clear Blue Specialty Ins. Co., No. 6:22-cv-2041, at *12 (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2023).
2 Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Schweitzer, 872 So.second 278 (Fla. 2004).
3 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 833 So.second 762 (Fla. 2002).