14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 855a
Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal award — Confirmation — Denial — Where parties opted to use voluntary appraisal process established in insurance policy to resolve dispute as to amount of loss, appraisals were conducted, and amount of loss was set and paid, there is no need or legal basis for court to grant motion to confirm appraisal award
MICHAEL CLEMENS and CINDI CLEMENS, Plaintiffs, vs. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Circuit Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2005-10087-CIDL. June 18, 2007. David A. Monaco, Judge. Counsel: Matthew R. Danahy, for Plaintiffs. Lynn S. Alfano-Vinton, Kingsford & Rock, P.A., Maitland, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONFIRM APPRAISAL AWARD FOR DAMAGE TO DWELLINGAND CODE UPGRADES ONLY, AND FOR ENTRY OFPARTIAL FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS ONTHAT PORTION OF APPRAISAL AWARD
This matter came on for hearing on the motion of the plaintiffs, Michael Clemens and Cindi Clemens, for confirmation of that part of an appraisal award under their homeowner’s policy regarding damage to their dwelling as a result of Hurricane Charley and regarding code upgrades. In addition, they seek entry of a partial summary judgment on the part of the appraisal award for which they seek a confirmation. As the court can find support neither in the law, nor in logic for the taking of such actions, the motion is denied.
State Farm issued a policy of homeowner’s insurance to Mr. and Mrs. Clemens that contained a provision entitled “Appraisal.” That provision begins with the following language:
If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either one can demand that the amount of the loss be set by appraisal.
The provision then outlines the process of each party selecting a competent, independent appraiser and the two appraisers selecting a competent, impartial umpire. The language continues:
If the appraisers submit a written report of an agreement to us (of the amount of loss), the amount agreed upon shall be the amount of the loss. If the appraisers fail to agree within a reasonable time, they shall submit their differences to the umpire. Written agreement signed by any two of the three shall set the amount of loss.
Thus, the parties may choose not to use the appraisal process by simply not demanding it. If they demand appraisal, however, that is the method to be used to set the amount of loss. In the present case, the parties opted to use the appraisal process, an appraisal was conducted, an amount of loss was set, State Farm paid it, and Mr. and Mrs. Clemens accepted it. There is, accordingly, absolutely no logical need for judicial intervention into this already accomplished and completed, purely voluntary process. That is to say, there is no logical point to the “confirmation” of the results of the appraisal because it is both extra-judicial and over. The court did not have to compel the parties to abide by their contract; there was no request for the court to interpret or construe the unambiguous language of the clause; and the court did not have to intervene in any way in the setting of the quantum of the loss or in the payment of it by the insurer. All of it was accomplished voluntarily.
Moreover, the court is convinced that there is no legal basis for the entry of a confirmation of the award. The Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Suarez, 833 So. 2d 762, 766 (Fla. 2002), pointedly held that an appraisal clause is not an agreement to arbitrate and that the parties need not proceed “under the formal procedures of the Arbitration Code.” The Arbitration Code contains language that authorizes a “confirmation” of the award. See Florida Statutes § 682.12 (2006). If the Arbitration Code is not applicable, then the need for a confirmation in accordance with it is likewise not applicable. Perhaps more importantly, the Supreme Court made it clear that the appraisal process is an informal procedure, and should be treated in that fashion to put into effect the intention of the parties. Inferentially, therefore, courts ought to stay out of it unless there is a real reason to intervene.
Federated National Ins. Co. v. Esposito, 937 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), is also instructive. In that case, much as in the present case, a confirmation of an appraisal award in the trial court was sought and obtained by the insured, despite the fact that the insurer had already paid the full amount of the award. The Fourth District said in reversing:
Because of the laudable goal of the appraisal process — to resolve disputes without litigation — and the potential to evade that goal by resort to the court system, we hold that there is no need to confirm an appraisal award in circumstances such as those presented here.
Id. at 201 (Emphasis added). See also Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Bobinski, 776 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 791 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2001).
In conclusion, beyond the illogic of a confirmation in the present case, the court can find no legal basis to take the requested action. There may, indeed, be some extraordinary occasions when a court needs to interject itself into the process. One of the parties, for example, might refuse to comply with the contractual obligation to honor the appraisal process or to abide by the result obtained by it. A confirmation may make sense under those circumstances. This case, however, does not present one of those occasions.
Accordingly, the motion of the plaintiffs to confirm the appraisal award and for partial summary judgment is denied.
