2019

44 Fla. L. Weekly D659a
265 So. 3d 730

Insurance — Appraisal — Trial court did not err by compelling appraisal prior to determining if insurer was wholly denying coverage where insurer admitted there was a covered loss by tendering check for its estimation of damage and choosing appraisal as appropriate resolution forum

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2304a
278 So. 3d 930

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Insurer agreeing that a portion of claim was covered while also asserting that amount of loss did not exceed the deductible and that balance of claimed loss constituted pre-existing damage — Trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion to compel appraisal because insurer did not wholly deny coverage

44 Fla. L. Weekly D1810a
276 So. 3d 456

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion to compel appraisal where insurer did not “wholly deny” coverage for insureds’ loss, but timely paid on claim for interior damage to home while declining to pay for certain damages to exterior of home

44 Fla. L. Weekly D1115a
268 So. 3d 1006

Insurance — Appraisal — Error to deny insurer’s motion to compel appraisal where insurer acknowledged that some portion of the total loss was covered

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2035a
277 So. 3d 135

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Dismissal — Appeals — Non-final orders — Trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice insurer’s counterclaim for specific performance, in which insurer sought to enforce provisions of policy for appraisal and repair after loss, based on a failure to state a cause of action — While it may be more traditional for an insurer to move to compel appraisal to seek enforcement of policy provisions, this does not preclude an insurer from filing a counterclaim alleging that insurer is entitled to enforce provisions of insurance policy through specific performance — No error in dismissing portion of counterclaim seeking temporary injunction as counterclaim on its face did not allege irreparable harm

44 Fla. L. Weekly D312a
260 So. 3d 1200

Insurance — Property — Trial court erred in entering order compelling appraisal before conducting evidentiary hearing

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2953a
285 So. 3d 958

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Disinterested appraiser — Insured’s public adjuster did not qualify as “disinterested appraiser” where insured signed contract with public adjuster entitling adjuster to portion of any recovery from the insurer and assigning a portion of the claim to the public adjuster; and public adjuster inspected property, submitted claim to insurance company, and later sent letter appointing himself as the appraiser — On remand, circuit court should enter judgment for insurer on issue of this specific public adjuster’s ability to serve as disinterested appraiser for this insured

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 45 Fla. L. Weekly D870d

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by allowing insureds’ agent/public adjuster to act as their disinterested appraiser — Fiduciary, such as a public adjuster who is in a contractual agent-principal relationship with insureds, cannot be a disinterested appraiser — Allowing public adjuster to act as insureds’ disinterested appraiser is a harm that cannot be remedied on appeal

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2126a
278 So. 3d 87

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Where factual dispute existed as to whether homeowner’s public adjuster sent letter to insurance company demanding an appraisal, trial court was required to hold evidentiary hearing to determine issue

44 Fla. L. Weekly D1403b
277 So. 3d 658

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2001b

Insurance — Property — Consequential damages — Lost rental income caused by insurer’s delay in adjusting and paying claim — Appraisal — Fraud — No error in requiring insured to pay for its own appraiser and half the cost of umpire’s fees where policy specifically required each party to pay such costs — Error to grant summary judgment in favor of insured on breach of contract claim regarding lost rental income on ground that the policy did not provide coverage for lost rent — An insured is entitled to recover more than the pecuniary loss involved in the balance of the payments due under the policy in consequential damages, provided the damages were contemplated by the parties at the inception of the contract — Insurer is not statutorily immune from consequential damages aspect of insurer’s claim where damages were based squarely on breach of contract claim and required no allegation or proof that insurer acted in bad faith — Trial court’s granting of motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding fraud claim based on the independent tort doctrine is affirmed based on tipsy coachman doctrine — Although fraud claim contained additional allegations not contained in breach of contract claim, the allegations attempted to assert bad faith liability from which insurer was immune