NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
RICK SCHWEITZER AND LINDA SCHWEITZER, APPELLEES
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.
Nationwide Insurance appealed a trial court order denying its motion to compel appraisal of an insurance dispute. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that because appraisal provisions in insurance policies are not agreements to arbitrate, orders involving appraisal entitlements are not appealable under the rule allowing appeals from non-final orders involving arbitration.
No. An order granting or denying appraisal is not appealable as an order involving entitlement to arbitration because appraisal provisions in insurance policies are not agreements to arbitrate. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
[1] An appraisal provision in an insurance policy is not an agreement to arbitrate.
[2] An order granting or denying appraisal is not appealable under a rule authorizing appeals from non-final orders involving entitlement to arbitration.
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“Suarez plainly held that an appraisal provision is not an agreement to arbitrate. It follows from Suarez that an order granting or denying an appraisal is not appealable as an order involving entitlement to arbitration.”
Establishes the legal principle that appraisal orders are not appealable under the arbitration rule because appraisal is not arbitration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed a class action against Nationwide alleging the insurer improperly specified non-original equipment manufacturer aftermarket crash par…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(3)(C)(Iv) cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellee plaintiffs filed this as a class action, purporting to represent claimants for whom Nationwide specified non-original equipment manufacturer aftermarket crash parts for the repair of damaged vehicles. Nationwide requested, under the terms of the insurance policy, that plaintiffs submit their dispute to appraisal. When plaintiffs refused, Nationwide moved to compel appraisal, which the trial court denied. Nationwide appeals, but we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Nationwide argues that we have jurisdiction of the order denying its motion for appraisal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), which authorizes appeals from non-final orders involving “the entitlement of á party to arbitration.” Nationwide acknowledges Allstate Insurance Company v. Suarez, 833 So. 2d 762 (Fla.2002), in which the Florida Supreme Court held that an appraisal provision for property damage in a homeowner’s insurance policy was not an agreement to arbitrate. Nationwide argues that Suarez did not specifically address the appealability of an order involving appraisal and points out that courts have exercised jurisdiction over non-final appeals of orders involving appraisal prior to Suarez. See Delisfort v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 785 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Intracoastal Ventures Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 540 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Modregon, 818 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Fla. Select Ins. Co. v. Keelean, 727 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Suarez plainly held that an appraisal provision is not an agreement to arbitrate. It follows from Suarez that an order granting or denying an appraisal is not appealable as an order involving entitlement to arbitration. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bruns, 443 So. 2d 959 (Fla.1984) (Rule 9.130, which allows appeals from non-final orders, is to be narrowly construed). The cases cited above have accordingly been overruled by Suarez on the issue of appealability of an order involving entitlement to an appraisal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill # 6 Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 117 So. 3d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…Arbitration Code is not applicable to appraisal cases.”)2 (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 833 So. 2d 762, 763-66 (Fla.2002); Cotton States Mut. Ins. v. D’Alto, 879 So. 2d 67, 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Schweitzer, 872 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). I. Like so many others, this case has its genesis in Hurricane Wilma, which called upon South Florida on October 24, 2005. At the time of the storm, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation had issued a commercial policy…
-
Cotton States Mut. Ins. v. D'Alto, 879 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…ences between appraisal and arbitration were discussed in Suarez in a different context, the rationale of the decision applies here, as well. As the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded in Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Schweitzer, 872 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), the Suarez decision effectively overrules the line of cases allowing appeals from orders that determine the right to an appraisal. We agree with this assessment. Based on the rationale of the Suarez decision, we hold that an or…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Cuban-Hebrew Congregation of Miami, Inc., 5 So. 3d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ida Arbitration Code is not applicable to appraisal cases. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 833 So. 2d 762, 763-66 (Fla.2002); see Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. D’Alto, 879 So. 2d 67, 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Schweitzer, 872 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In its oral pronouncement, the trial court recognized that the Florida Arbitration Code was not applicable, because the court stated that it was looking to the Arbitration Code for guidance. In other words, even though the…
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
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns, 443 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1984)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Juan and Julia Romay, 744 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Intracoastal Ventures Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 540 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 833 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2002)
- Fla. Select Ins. Co. v. Keelean, 727 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Modregon, 818 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Delisfort v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 785 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)