25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 229b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2503SOWEInsurance — Appraisal — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by denying motion to enforce appraisal where insurer invoked appraisal provision of policy and sole dispute was amount of loss, which fell within appraisal provision
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CORNERSTONE NETWORK, INC., a/a/o Dakota Sowell, Respondent, Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. CACE 16-021830 (AW). L.T. Case No. COCE 15-026495. May 25, 2017. Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the County Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Linda R. Pratt, Judge. Counsel: Alexandra Valdes, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Petitioners. Joseph R. Dawson, of Law Offices of Joseph R. Dawson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Respondent.
FINAL ORDER GRANTINGPETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
(PER CURIAM.) THIS CAUSE came before this Court upon Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed November 30, 2016, and the Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed February 17, 2017, and Petitioner’s Reply filed March 2, 2017. Having carefully considered the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, this Court dispenses with oral argument. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.
Petitioner seeks review of the trial court’s Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and Motion to Enforce Appraisal. Permitting parties to litigate in court where there is a legal or contractual obligation to proceed through alternative dispute resolution constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Lapidus v. Arlen Beach Condo Ass’n, Inc., et al., 394 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Appraisal is similar to arbitration in that the purpose of appraisal is to avoid or reduce the need for litigation. However, “an agreement for appraisal extends merely to the resolution of the specific issues of actual cash value and ‘amount of loss.’” Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp v. Mango Hill #6 Condo. Ass’n. Inc., 117 So. 3d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D1507c]. An appraisal results in a binding determination as to the amount of loss which could avoid a parties’ need to resort to litigation. Petitioner invoked its contractual right to appraisal once it was aware that there was a dispute as to the amount of loss. Respondent, in turn, improperly proceeded to bring the instant suit against Petitioner after the proper invocation of a valid appraisal provision. See Travelers of Fla. v. Stormont, 43 So. 3d 941, 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D2059a] (“Once the insurer demanded appraisal, the insured was required to comply with the appraisal clause. Proceeding to court was not justified.”). Contrary to Respondent’s argument and the trial court’s order, the dispute is purely a question about “the amount of loss” which falls within the scope of the appraisal provision. “Issues relating to coverage challenges are questions exclusively for the judiciary.” Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc. v. Olympus Ass’n, Inc., 34 So. 3d 791, 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D1117b]. However, “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.” Id.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
2. The trial court’s November 14, 2016 order denying Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and Motion to Enforce Appraisal is hereby QUASHED. (MURPHY, PERLMAN and LEVENSON, JJ., concur.)
