45 Fla. L. Weekly D2118a
Insurance — Appraisal — Dispute whether title and registration transfer fees must be included in “actual cash value” paid for a vehicle declared a total loss is question of policy interpretation for court, not disputed issue of fact concerning “amount of loss” subject to appraisal — Further, insurer failed to show that disagreement about precise amount of fees is appraisable factual issue, rather than pure legal question based upon statutory interpretation — Trial court erred in entering an order compelling appraisal and dismissing insured’s putative class action
GRAVITYSTORM, LLC, Appellant, v. OLD DOMINION INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D20-295. September 9, 2020. Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Barbara W. Bronis, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2019CA001337. Counsel: Jacob L. Phillips and Edmund A. Normand of Normand PLLC, Orlando, Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, P.A., Aventura, Andrew J. Shamis and Garrett O. Berg of Shamis & Gentile P.A., Miami, and Rachel Dapeer of Dapeer Law P.A., Miami, for appellant. Michael Menapace of Wiggin and Dana LLP, Hartford, CT, and Cynthia G. Angelos of Law Offices of Cynthia G. Angelos P.A., Port St. Lucie, for appellee.
(PER CURIAM.) Gravitystorm, LLC (the insured) appeals an order compelling appraisal and dismissing its putative class action. The insured argues that there is no appraisable issue because the only dispute involves a question of law that the trial court must resolve. The issue raised in the insured’s amended complaint is whether title and registration transfer fees must be included in the “actual cash value” paid for a vehicle declared a total loss.
We agree with the insured that this is a question of policy interpretation for the court, not a disputed issue of fact about the “amount of loss” for appraisal. See Delisfort v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 785 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reversing an order compelling appraisal where the disputed issue involved construction of policy language, not an appraisable disputed issue of fact). Similarly, the insurer has not shown that disagreement about the precise amount of fees is an appraisable factual issue, rather than a pure legal question based upon statutory interpretation. Accordingly, we reverse the order compelling appraisal and dismissing the action, and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed. (LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.)
