UNITED COMMUNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LESLIE LEWIS, 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.
United Community Insurance Company appealed a trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss an insured's declaratory relief action. The court held that the appraisal clause in the insurance policy made arbitration mandatory once invoked, contrary to the trial court's interpretation that the clause was merely permissive.
The appraisal clause was mandatory once invoked by either party. The word 'may' in the clause did not render arbitration permissive; rather, a full reading of the clause made clear that neither party could deny a demand for appraisal once made.
[1] An appraisal clause in an insurance policy, requiring parties to demand an appraisal if they disagree on the amount of loss, makes appraisal a mandatory condition precede…
[2] The word "may" in an insurance policy's appraisal clause does not render the appraisal process permissive if the clause, read in full, indicates that neither party has th…
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 intelligence“A full reading of the clause makes clear that neither party has the right to deny that demand once it is made.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the appraisal clause once invoked by either party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn insured filed a complaint for declaratory relief arguing that her insurer wrongfully denied coverage on a claim. The insurer filed a motion to dism…
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 Condition Precedent To Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this case, an insured filed a complaint for declaratory relief, arguing that her insurer had wrongfully denied her coverage on a claim. The insurer then filed a motion to dismiss claiming insured’s failure to comply with the appraisal clause of the policy, a condition precedent to coverage, precluded coverage. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. We reverse.
That appraisal clause provides in part: Appraisal. If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either may demand an appraisal of the loss. In this event, each party will choose a competent appraiser within 20 days after receiving a written request for the other. The two appraisers will choose an umpire. If they cannot agree upon an umpire within 15 days, you or we may request that the choice be made by a judge of a court of record in the state where the residence premises is located. The appraisers will separately set the amount of loss. If the appraisers submit a written report of an agreement to us, the amount agreed upon will be the amount of loss. If they fail to agree, they will submit their difference to the umpire. A decision agreed to by any two will set the amount of loss.
Below, the insured successfully argued that the word “may” connoted that appraisal was permissive only. This is not the case. A full reading of the clause makes clear that neither party has the right to deny that demand once it is made. See Ziegler v. Knuck, 419 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Intracoastal Ventures Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 540 So. 2d 162, 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Here, the insurer’s demand for arbitration was timely, and the insurer did not act inconsistently with that right at any point in the proceedings. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Franko, 443 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Consequently, the trial court erred in concluding that the parties’ agreement did not make arbitration mandatory. Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand for the trial court to enter an order finding that arbitration was mandatory once invoked by one of the contracting parties, and retaining jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcement.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (40 total)
-
Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sheaffer, 687 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…be governed by rule of impartiality applicable to arbitrators). Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the trial court to order arbitration. The trial court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcement. United Community Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 642 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. JOANOS and PADOVANO, JJ, concur. . See D.E. Ytreberg, Annotation, Insurance: Necessity and Notice of and Hearing In Proceedings Before Appraisers and Arbitrat…
-
Poppy Chimerakis v. Sentry Ins. Mut. Co., 804 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…within twenty days. At the time of Chimerakis’ demand for appraisal, the law in this district did not permit either the insured or the insurer to refuse to submit to an appraisal once a demand had been made. See United Community Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 642 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). In response to the demand made by Chimerakis, Sentry stated that it would have to investigate her claim of loss, but Sentry did not designate an appraiser. Chimerakis treated Sentry’s failure to designate an appraiser as a breach…
-
Sunlight Lands LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2020 WL 13687543 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…When an insurance policy contains an appraisal provision, like here, the right to appraisal is not permissive but mandatory. So once a demand for appraisal is made, “neither party has the right to deny that demand." United Cmty. Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 642 So. 2d 59, 60 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994); see also Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Cannon Ranch Partners, Inc., 162 So. 3d 140, 143 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (“[W]hen the insurer admits that there is a covered loss, any dispute on the amount of loss suffered is appro…
Previewing 3 of 40 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Intracoastal Ventures Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 540 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Franko, 443 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Ziegler v. The Honorable Francis X. Knuck, 419 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)