24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 549c
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2407MADRInsurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Appraisal — Action for unpaid balance of claim for windshield repair is stayed pending appraisal
GLASSMAX, INC. a/a/o Christi Madrid, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Civil Division. Case No. 2016-SC-000735-O. July 11, 2016. Steve Jewett, Judge. Counsel: Christopher J. Martin, Maitland, for Plaintiff. Coleman P. Hengesbach, Progressive PIP House Counsel, Maitland, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTIONTO DISMISS AND/OR STAY IN FAVOR OF APPRAISALAND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER/EXTENSIONOF TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or Stay in Favor of Appraisal and Motion for Protective Order/Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the premises, states as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. Defendant issued an automobile insurance policy to Christi Madrid (“insured”), which provided comprehensive coverage subject to the terms and conditions of the subject policy.
2. On January 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging Breach of Contract arising out of windshield repair/replacement purportedly done on Defendant’s insured’s vehicle.
3. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not make full payment of the comprehensive and/or collision benefits promptly and or reasonably or as required under the Insured’s policy of insurance.
4. Prior to the subject lawsuit being filed, Defendant had accepted coverage for the loss and issued payment pursuant to the terms and conditions of the subject policy to Plaintiff.
5. On March 22, 2016, Defendant filed a Notice of Invoking Appraisal Provision of the policy, which states in part, “if we cannot agree with you on the amount of a loss, then we or you may demand an appraisal of the loss.”
6. On March 22, 2016, Defendant also filed a Motion to Stay and Enforce Appraisal. This Motion was later amended on April 27, 2016.
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL
7. In its Motion, Defendant argued that Appraisal provisions are an effective and inexpensive way to resolve disputes over the amount of an insured loss. Defendant also contended that the lawsuit was the first notice of the dispute and thus the first opportunity to invoke the appraisal provision.
8. “When the insurer admits that there is a covered loss, but there is a disagreement on the amount of loss, it is for the appraisers to arrive at the amount to be paid.” Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., Co., 828 So. 2d 1021, 1025 (Fla. 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly S779a].
9. In response to Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff argued, among other things, that the term “loss”, as used in the appraisal provision of the policy and as defined in the policy, was inconsistent with what the Defendant wanted to have appraised. The Court disagrees.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or Stay in Favor of Appraisal and Motion for Protective Order/Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery is hereby GRANTED as to Defendant’s Request to Stay and proceed with an Appraisal.
2. Defendant’s request to Dismiss the instant action is DENIED.
3. The instant action shall be STAYED for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this Order to conduct an Appraisal of the loss outlined in the Appraisal provision of the subject policy.
4. Each party shall select an appraiser within thirty (30) days of this Order.
5. Each party shall select five (5) names of referees/umpires should the appraisers not come to an agreement over the amount.
