22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 373c
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2203RESTInsurance — Property — Appraisal — Measures taken to protect covered property from further damage — Reasonableness of amount charged by plaintiff for emergency services is not subject to appraisal
RESTORATION 1 OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC., Plaintiff, v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 13-23483-CC 05. August 21, 2014. Gladys Perez, Judge. Counsel: Erik D. Diener, The Diener Firm, P.A., Plantation, for Plaintiff. Michael Sperounes, Andrew Labbe, and Karen Jerome Smith, Groelle & Salmon, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This cause having come before this Court on May 30, 2014, on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court having heard argument of counsel, reviewed the record evidence and case law, and the Court having been otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
Both parties presented substantive motions for summary judgment. Moreover, both parties presented argument during a lengthy hearing, crystalizing the issue for this Court’s determination. At the heart of the controversy in this case is whether emergency mitigation services are subject to the appraisal provision of the insurance contract.
The Court finds that the amounts at issue in the instant suit are not subject to the appraisal provision of the insurance policy/contract. Rather, provision “E.Additional Coverages 2. Reasonable Repairs” controls. That provision states in pertinent part:
a. We will pay the reasonable cost incurred by you for the necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property that is damaged by a Peril Insured against from further damage.
Accordingly, the dispute in this specific factual scenario is as to the reasonableness of the amount charged by the Plaintiff for its emergency services. The issue here, however, does not involve a dispute as to the “amount of a loss,” necessitating appraisal or triggering the appraisal provision of the insurance contract. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the appraisal provision is a contractual mechanism to settle disputes as to amount when the insured and insurer are unable to agree among differing estimates for damage or loss. Appraisal is not a mechanism that may be used by an insurer to limit a covered emergency expense that an insured incurred to mitigate a loss in fulfillment of his or her post-loss obligations under the policy.
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Based on the foregoing ruling, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
* * *
