28 Fla. L. Weekly D327a
Insurance — Appraiser — Competency — Trial properly granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss complaint on ground that plaintiff did not designate a competent and disinterested appraiser because, although the policy does not require an insured to select an expert as an appraiser, there was insufficient evidence to establish the attorney designated by the plaintiff was competent to serve in that capacity
NAIDA ROSELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, a Florida corporation, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D01-3569. L.T. Case No. 01-1805. Opinion filed January 29, 2003. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gisela Cardonne, Judge. Counsel: Angones, Hunter, McClure, Lynch, Williams & Garcia and Christopher J. Lynch, for appellant. Colodny, Fass, Talenfeld, Karlinsky & Abate and Maria Abate, for appellee.
(Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., FLETCHER and SHEVIN, JJ.)
(PER CURIAM.) We affirm the order granting the defendant/insurer’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on a finding that plaintiff did not designate a “competent and disinterested appraiser” as required by the terms of the insurance policy. Although plaintiff correctly asserts that the policy does not require that an insured select an expert as an appraiser, the court properly ruled that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the designated attorney was competent to serve in the capacity of appraiser. See generally Allstate v. Suarez, 786 So. 2d 645, 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), approved, No. SC01-1459 (Fla. Dec. 12, 2002) (appraisers expected to act on their skill and knowledge).
Affirmed.
