appraisal clause in Florida

2013Co. v. Licea, 685 So.2d 1285, 1288 (Fla.1996) (“We interpret the appraisal clause to require an assessment of the amount of a loss.”).

2011For the reasons discussed, we hold that the appraisal clause at issue is not void for lack of mutuality of obligation simply because of a retained rights clause, where we interpret the clause as retaining only the right to dispute the issues of coverage as to the whole loss, or whether the policy conditions have been violated as specified above. 685 So.2d at 1288 .

2015Id. (holding that “an ‘insured must comply with all of the policy’s post-loss obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered.’ ” (quoting Ro-may, 744 So.2d at 471 )); see also Citizens Prop.

2015Thus, an “insured must comply with all of the policy’s post-loss obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered.” Id. at 471 ; see First Home Ins.

2024Ass’n 12, 54 So. 3d 578, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (recognizing that an “insured must comply with all of the policy’s post-loss obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered.” (quoting U.S. Fid. & Guar.

2022“Thus, an ‘insured must comply with all of the policy’s post- 2 We reject ACIC’s claim that the order compelling appraisal denied it of the right to jury trial without further discussion. 5 loss obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered.’” Id. (citation omitted).

2021Similarly, in Paradise Plaza Condominium Ass’n v. Reinsurance Corp. of New York, 685 So. 2d 937, 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that reservation of insurer’s right to contest coverage does not render damage appraisal clause “void for lack of 7 mutuality”), we affirmed an order compelling appraisal despite the insured’s argument that the appraisal clause was “invalid on its face.” However, trial courts ordinarily have the discretion to decide the order in which appraisal and coverage determinations are made.

2013Ass’n Inc. v. Reinsurance Corp. of N.Y., 685 So.2d 937, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (stating the phrase “right to deny the claim” in an appraisal clause identical to the one before us is the functional equivalent of the Hanover clause that the [appraisers] “shall not decide the [carrier’s] liability”); see also Johnson v. Nationwide Mut.

2015Co. v. Fleurimond, 36 So.3d 172, 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). (emphasis added).

2011Co. v. Fleurimond, 36 So.3d 172, 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

2014See Green v. Life & Health of Am., 704 So.2d 1386, 1390-91 (Fla.1998).

2014See Green v. Life & Health of Am., 704 So. 2d 1386, 1390-91 (Fla. 1998).

2023Co. v. Cardelles, 159 So. 3d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)) (“[A]n insured must comply with all of the policy's post-loss obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered.”) (quotation omitted); State Farm Fla. Ins.

2015Id. (holding that “an ‘insured must comply with all of the policy’s post-loss obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered.’ ” (quoting Romay, 744 So.2d at 471 )); see also Citizens Prop.

2021Co., 805 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)).

2011Co., 805 So.2d 814, 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

2021Id. (citations omitted) (reversing denial of motion to compel appraisal and remanding for appraisal and abatement of suit).

2015Co. v. Cannon Ranch Partners, Inc., 162 So.3d 140, 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (noting that the trial court “could not have found the appraisal clause to be unenforceable unless the clause violated either statutory law or public policy”); Fla. Farm Bureau Cas.

2011Co. v. Robles, 685 So.2d 1288 (Fla.1996) (holding an appraisal clause was not void for lack of mutuality due to a retained rights clause based on the holding in Li cea).

2011Ins. *485 Co. v. Robles, 685 So.2d 1288 (Fla.1996) (holding an appraisal clause was not void for lack of mutuality due to a retained rights clause based on the holding in Licea ).

2002The insurance company sought to have the suit dismissed, claiming that the Sheaffers' suit should be handled according to the policy's appraisal clause. [3] See id.

2002In Sheaffer , the First District went beyond the plain meaning of the appraisal clause when it considered that the appraisers would have to "exercise ... quasi-judicial authority to resolve the dispute." 687 So.2d at 1334 .

2023Co. v. Hernandez, 172 So. 3d 473, 476-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“[T]he party seeking appraisal must comply with all post-loss obligations before the right to appraisal can be invoked under the contract.”) “Until these [post-loss obligation] conditions are met and the insurer has a reasonable opportunity to investigate and adjust the claim, there is no ‘disagreement’ (for purposes of the appraisal provision in the policy) 2 Lloyd’s has, in essence, rejected Gables Courts’ partial concession of error, contending there is no need for an evidentiary hearing because the existing record establishes the

2021Ass'n. v. Castilla, 18 So. 3d 703, 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding an appraisal clause may be invoked for the first time after litigation has commenced) (citing Gonzalez v. State Farm Fire & Cas.

2021Co., 121 So. 3d 433, 438 (Fla. 2013). 6 amount of its own adjuster’s unilateral estimate . . . .” Importantly, the complaint does not reference the subject endorsement, People’s Trust’s exercise of its right to repair under the endorsement, or the endorsement’s appraisal clause that either party may invoke once People’s Trust exercises its right to repair. 3 D.

2010In Three Palms Pointe, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 362 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir.2004), the Eleventh Circuit relied on Licea to hold that an insurer was limited to challenging coverage for the *795 “loss as a whole” once an appraisal award had been made.

2002See id. at 761-62.

2002See id.

2001In Bailey v. Timpone, 75 Ill.2d 539 , 27 Ill.Dec. 785 , 389 N.E.2d 1193, 1196 (1979), the Illinois Supreme Court treated an appraisal clause in a lease as the equivalent of an arbitration proceeding, but noted that the Act “is not directly applicable since the lease did not technically call for arbitration....” .

2001In Bailey v. Timpone, 75 Ill.2d 539 , 27 Ill.Dec. 785 , 389 N.E.2d 1193, 1196 (1979), the Illinois Supreme Court treated an appraisal clause in a lease as the equivalent of an arbitration proceeding, but noted that the Act “is not directly applicable since the lease did not technically call for arbitration....” .

1998See Johnson v. Citizens State Bank, 537 So.2d 96, 97-98 (Fla.1989). [4] The appraisal clause also requires that the appraiser be competent, but there is no issue raised on the issue of competency. [5] The arbitration clause at issue in Grabbert simply called for each party to select "an arbitrator." Id. at 89 . [6] The appraisal clause in Central Life required each party to select "a competent and disinterested appraiser." Id. at 258 n. 1. [7] Excerpts from the Code of Ethics are attached as an appendix to this opinion.

1998See Johnson v. Citizens State Bank, 537 So.2d 96, 97-98 (Fla.1989). [4] The appraisal clause also requires that the appraiser be competent, but there is no issue raised on the issue of competency. [5] The arbitration clause at issue in Grabbert simply called for each party to select "an arbitrator." Id. at 89 . [6] The appraisal clause in Central Life required each party to select "a competent and disinterested appraiser." Id. at 258 n. 1. [7] Excerpts from the Code of Ethics are attached as an appendix to this opinion.