JUANA ATENCIO, APPELLANT,
v.
U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
An insured appeals an order compelling appraisal of an insurance claim under a collision coverage policy. The court reversed, holding that appraisal is inappropriate when the dispute concerns policy interpretation and coverage rather than the amount of loss.
The court held that appraisal may be required only for disputes concerning which the parties have expressly agreed, and questions of policy interpretation and coverage are ordinarily for courts rather than appraisers to decide. Therefore, the order compelling appraisal was incorrect.
[1] Appraisal clauses in insurance policies are generally enforceable only as to disputes concerning the amount of loss, not coverage questions.
[2] Questions of insurance policy interpretation and coverage are matters for the court, not for arbitrators or appraisers.
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“It is well established that, as a general rule, arbitration and appraisal may be required only as to those disputes concerning which the parties have expressly agreed.”
Establishes the foundational principle that appraisal is limited to expressly agreed disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJuana Atencio held a collision coverage automobile insurance policy with U.S. Security Insurance Company. A dispute arose over whether the policy requ…
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 Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v), the insured under the collision coverage of an automobile insurance policy appeals from an order granting the carrier’s motion to compel appraisal pursuant to a clause which provided that:
If we and you do not agree on the amount of the loss, either may demand an appraisal of the loss. In this event, each party will select a competent appraiser. The two appraisers will select an umpire. The appraisers will state separately the actual cash value and the amount of loss, [e.s.]
We reverse.
The only issue in this asserted class action for damages and declaratory relief concerned the monumental coverage question of whether, on undisputed facts, the company was required to pay for “loss of use” of the damaged vehicle for up to $200.00 or only for $10.00 per day “rental reimbursement” for the seven days the insured had rented another car. Since there thus was no question of the “amount of loss” and thus nothing which was even subject to appraisal, the order requiring it was incorrect.
It is well established that, as a general rule, arbitration and appraisal may be required only as to those disputes concerning which the parties have expressly agreed. Roe v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 533 So. 2d 279 (Fla.1988); Ocala Breeders’ Sales Co. v. Brunetti, 567 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review dismissed, 576 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1990); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Banaszak, 561 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Pacemaker Corp. v. Euster, 357 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Moreover, questions of policy interpretation and coverage are ordinarily for the court, rather than arbitrators or appraisers, to decide. See Roe, 533 So. 2d 279; Meade v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 423 So. 2d 908 (Fla.1982); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wingate, 604 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bruno v. Travelers Ins. Co., 386 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Applying these rules, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for further consistent proceedings including determination of the validity of the asserted class action, the maintainability of the claim for declaratory relief, and the jurisdiction of the circuit court.1
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. Because the basis of this decision has made it unnecessary to reach the contentious question of whether this court should adhere to American Reliance Insurance Company v. Village Homes At Country Walk, 632 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 640 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1994), the order for en banc consideration of this case, which had been granted to consider that issue, is discharged.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mariano R. Gonzalez and Rene Gonzalez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 805 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…Fla. July 13, 2000)2; Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sheaffer, 687 So. 2d 1331, 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So. 2d 467, 469-70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (en banc); Atencio v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 676 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).3 The judgment confirming the appraisal award must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. III. The homeowners argue that State Farm waived its right to appraisal because State Farm did not request appraisal…
-
Ibis Lakes Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Ibis Isle Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 102 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…2d 279, 281 (Fla.1988)). However, arbitration “may be required only as to those disputes concerning which the parties have expressly agreed.” Vargas v. Schweitzer-Ramras, 878 So. 2d 415, 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (quoting Atencio v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 676 So. 2d 489, 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)). Thus, “[t]he general rule is that where an arbi [*728] tration agreement exists between the parties, arbitration is required only of those controversies or disputes which the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration.” R…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Casar, 104 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…posed Agreement for Appraisal. Therefore, pursuant to the policy, as there was no written agreement between the parties, Citizens was not required to participate in appraisal. Appraisals are creatures of contract. See Atencio v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 676 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that arbitration and appraisal may be required only as to those disputes concerning which the parties have expressly agreed); see also Rosenhaus v. Star Sports, Inc., 929 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). What is appraised an…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- ROE v. AMICA Mut. Ins. Co., 533 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1988)
- Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. The Vill. Homes AT Country Walk, 632 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Pacemaker Corp. v. Euster, 357 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Meade v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 423 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1982)
- Bruno v. Travelers Ins. Co., 386 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Ocala Breeders' Sales Co. v. Brunetti, 567 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- 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)
- State v. Wilson, 604 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)