JOHN ROSEMURGY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, RESPONDENT
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.
Insurance appraisal clauses are not void for lack of mutuality due to retained rights clauses, as such clauses only preserve the right to dispute coverage or policy condition violations.
[1] Appraisal clauses in insurance policies are not void for lack of mutuality of obligation due to retained rights clauses, as such clauses are interpreted to preserve only…
[2] A district court decision is approved to the extent it is consistent with a supreme court holding that clarifies the enforceability of insurance appraisal clauses.
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 intelligenceThe court reviewed a decision in Rosemurgy v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. which relied on Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Desalvo to affirm dismissal o…
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 Mutuality Of Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the decision in Rosemurgy v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 673 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), which certified conflict with the opinions in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Licea, 649 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA), quashed, 685 So. 2d 1285 (Fla.1996), Gables Court Professional Centre, Inc. v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 642 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 650 So. 2d 990 (Fla.1994), Robles v. Harco National Insurance Co., 669 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), quashed, 685 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. Dec. 26,1996), and American Reliance Insurance Co. v. Village Homes at Country Walk, 632 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 640 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1994).
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Rosemurgy relied on Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Desalvo, 666 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of a complaint challenging an insurance appraisal clause. We have recently held that appraisal clauses are not void for lack of mutuality of obligation simply because of retained rights clauses, where we interpret such clauses as retaining only the right to dispute the issues of coverage as to the whole loss, or whether the policy conditions have been violated in certain ways. See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Licea, 685 So. 2d 1285 (Fla.1996).
Accordingly, we approve both the decision of the district court below and the First District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Desalvo, to the extent they are consistent with our holding in Licea. We have now quashed the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Robles, See Harco National Insurance Co. v. Robles, 685 So. 2d 1288 (Fla.1996). We have also already quashed the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Licea, and disapproved Country Walk. See State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Licea, 685 So. 2d 1285 (Fla.1996). We now disapprove the Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Gables Court Professional Centre.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
First Protective Ins. Co. v. Hess, 81 So. 3d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…instances where the insurer attempted to challenge only an element of the appraisal award and, therefore, do not determine the scope of coverage an insurer may contest after the parties submit to appraisal; Rosemurgy v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 685 So. 2d 1289 (Fla.1996). We find the relevant language in Licea is dicta and, therefore, not binding under the facts in this case. (2) A trial court is not permitted to consider extrinsic evidence in applying policy limitations to an appraisal award. The appr…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Elicer Licea, 685 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1996)
- Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. The Vill. Homes AT Country Walk, 632 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Desalvo, 666 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Elicer Licea and Hermida Licea, 649 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Gables Court Prof'l Ctr., Inc. v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 642 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Robles v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co., 669 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Harco Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Robles, 685 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1996)
- Rosemurgy v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 673 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)