STAR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
DR. CAR GLASS, LLC, A/A/O SANTIAGO CASTILLO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Trial courts have discretion to decide the order in which appraisal and coverage determinations are made, including whether to address enforceability challenges to appraisal clauses before compelling appraisal.
[1] Trial courts have discretion to determine the procedural order in which appraisal and coverage determinations are addressed, including the determination of whether to adj…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Trial courts ordinarily have the discretion to decide the order in which appraisal and coverage determinations are made. Analogously, where declaratory counts challenging the enforceability of an appraisal clause exist, courts must enjoy no less power to decide whether to address such arguments in an adjudication of the merits of such counts, or in response to a motion to compel appraisal, before the appraisal can be enforced, as well as to decide whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.”
Court citing People's Trust Insurance Co. v. Marzouka in support of affirming the trial court's order
Star Casualty Insurance Company appealed a non-final order from Miami-Dade County Court regarding a dispute with Dr. Car Glass, LLC involving appraisa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Compel Appraisal cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 8, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-1156 Lower Tribunal No. 22-29110-SP-26
Star Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant,
vs.
Dr. Car Glass, LLC, a/a/o Santiago Castillo, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michaelle Gonzalez-Paulson, Judge.
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Mark D. Tinker and Brandon J. Tyler (Tampa), for appellant.
Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and William D. Mueller, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Marzouka, 320 So. 3d 945, 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“[T]rial courts ordinarily have the discretion to decide the order in which appraisal and coverage determinations are made. Analogously, where declaratory counts challenging the enforceability of an appraisal clause exist, courts must enjoy no less power to decide whether to address such arguments in an adjudication of the merits of such counts, or in response to a motion to compel appraisal, before the appraisal can be enforced, as well as to decide whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted." (citation omitted)).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Star Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dr. Car Glass, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…d Brandon J. Tyler (Tampa), for appellant. Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and William D. Mueller, for appellee. Before SCALES, C.J., and GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. ---PAGE 2--- Affirmed. See People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Marzouka, 320 So. 3d 945, 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“[T]rial courts ordinarily have the discretion to decide the order in which appraisal and coverage determinations are made. Analogously, where declaratory counts challenging the enforceability of an appraisal clause exist, c…
-
Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Hillsborough Ins. Recovery Ctr., LLC, 349 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…urt makes the preliminary ripeness determination, motions to compel appraisal "should be granted whenever the parties have agreed to [appraisal] and the court entertains no doubts that such an agreement was made." People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Marzouka, 320 So. 3d 945, 947-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 643 So. 2d 1101, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)). Case law does not require Progressive to engage in good faith negotiations for its deman…
-
Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. DR. CAR Glass, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…urt could not have granted the motion to compel appraisal as to the breach of contract claim without improperly and prematurely adjudicating these issues with regard to the declaratory judgment claims. 3 People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Marzouka, 320 So. 3d 945, 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citations omitted). Accordingly, there was no departure from the essential requirements of the law. Additionally, Progressive fails to show irreparable harm where, as here, the trial court stayed the breach of contract…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Star Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dr. Car Glass, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)