STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
TIMOTHY LEON WINGATE, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the issue of insurance policy coverage must be decided by the court before an appraisal can proceed.
[1] An insurer's claim that a policy is void due to concealment, misrepresentation, or other policy breaches presents an issue of coverage, not liability.
[2] A court must determine coverage issues before an appraisal panel can proceed with determining the extent of loss under an insurance policy.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn insurer voided a homeowners policy due to alleged misrepresentation and concealment by the insured. The insured requested an appraisal, but the ins…
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 Appraisal Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
per curiam:
The insurer (State Farm) appeals from a non-final order, denying its motion to stay an appraisal. We reverse and remand with direction to grant the stay. Appellee/insured (Wingate) entered into an agreement with State Farm for a homeowners policy on or about February 5, 1991. On May 3, 1991, fire destroyed Win-gate’s residence. Subsequently, he submitted a claim for insurance proceeds to State Farm along with a proof of loss. As a result, State Farm evaluated his claim and the circumstances surrounding the loss. Following this evaluation, State Farm determined that the insurance policy was void for several reasons: Concealment and/or misrepresentation of the cause of the fire; circumstances surrounding the fire; and the value, ownership, existence and quantity of items the fire destroyed.
State Farm later informed Wingate that it was denying all payment because of the above circumstances and voided the insurance policy. Subsequently, Wingate made a request of State Farm for an appraisal which led State Farm to file an action for declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to submit to arbitration under the appraisal provision and to preclude the appraisal panel from determining any issue of policy coverage. It moved to stay appraisal until the trial court could determine the issue of coverage. The trial court denied State Farm’s motion to stay appraisal, leading to this appeal.
Appellant contends the first issue is one of coverage, its having voided the policy. Appellee argues the issue is liability. It is a jurisprudential scenario not unlike that in Nationwide Insurance Co. v. Cooperstock, 472 So. 2d 547, 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and we conclude the initial issue here is one of coverage, not liability. As the court said in Nationwide, such issue is for the court to decide. See also Allstate Insurance Co. v. Banaszak, 561 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), and State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759, 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Sunny Cooperstock, 472 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Williams v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 561 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Banaszak, 561 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)