2020

45 Fla. L. Weekly D288a
290 So. 3d 150

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Insured’s public adjuster who is entitled to a contingency fee of insurance proceeds recovered may not serve as a “disinterested appraiser”

45 Fla. L. Weekly D411b
290 So. 3d 1090

Insurance — Appraisal — Disinterested appraiser — Insured’s public adjuster, who is entitled to contingency fee from recovered insurance proceeds, is not authorized to serve as insured’s disinterested appraiser

45 Fla. L. Weekly D424b
294 So. 3d 921

Insurance — Appraisal — Post-loss obligations — Hearing — Error to grant insured’s motion to compel appraisal without conducting evidentiary hearing where there was factual dispute as to whether insured complied with its post-loss obligations

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2442a

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Appraisal — Waiver — Trial court erred in compelling appraisal of residential home under policy where there were disputes over coverage and policy specifically precluded appraisal for coverage issues — Moreover, any right of appraisal was waived where suit was filed and litigated for a year prior to appraisal request

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1523a

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Trial court erred by granting insureds’ motion to compel arbitration without holding evidentiary hearing to determine whether insureds had complied with post-loss obligation to submit sworn proof of loss that is compliant with policy requirements

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2754a

Insurance — Appraisal — Confirmation of award — Petition is improper vehicle to seek confirmation of arbitration award — There is no rule or statute allowing for the filing of a petition to enforce an appraisal award — Trial court erred in granting petition to confirm arbitration award — Remand with directions that insured be given opportunity to amend its petition and file a complaint alleging a viable cause of action against insurer, which will relate back to the filing of petition to confirm

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1194a
297 So. 3d 570

Insurance — Homeowners — All risk policy — Water damage — Breach of contract claim filed against insurer alleging that pool’s leaking drain pipe caused damages covered under policy — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer based on finding that policy’s water damage exclusion barred insureds’ claim — Language of water damage exclusion provisions in policy plainly referred to naturally-flowing water or waterborne material existing outside of the plumbing system — Because trial court did not rule on policy’s “wear and tear” exclusion, insureds’ argument that exclusion did not apply is not ripe for appellate review

45 Fla. L. Weekly D544a
297 So. 3d 558

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1194a

Insurance — Homeowners — All risks policy — Water damage — Breach of contract claim filed against insurer alleging that pool’s leaking drain pipe caused damages covered under policy — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer based on finding that policy’s water damage exclusion barred insureds’ claim — Language of water damage exclusion provisions in policy plainly referred to naturally-flowing water or liquids existing outside of the plumbing system — Because trial court did not rule on policy’s “wear and tear” exclusion, insureds’ argument that exclusion did not apply is not ripe for appellate review

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1210a

Insurance — Homeowners — All risk policy — Exclusions — Claim for water damage — Trial court properly entered summary for insurer on basis that claim for water damage was excluded by constant and repeated seepage or leakage exclusion in policy — Insurer proffered evidence that damage likely occurred by slow leakage or seepage of water over period of weeks or months, and insureds failed to introduce sufficient evidence to show that the damage was instead caused by a one-time accidental release of water

45 Fla. L. Weekly D2118a

Insurance — Appraisal — Dispute whether title and registration transfer fees must be included in “actual cash value” paid for a vehicle declared a total loss is question of policy interpretation for court, not disputed issue of fact concerning “amount of loss” subject to appraisal — Further, insurer failed to show that disagreement about precise amount of fees is appraisable factual issue, rather than pure legal question based upon statutory interpretation — Trial court erred in entering an order compelling appraisal and dismissing insured’s putative class action