CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHIGAN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, 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.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed a circuit court order compelling appraisal of property damage before resolution of underlying coverage disputes. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that trial courts must resolve all coverage disputes before ordering appraisal, and rejected a "dual-track" approach that would allow appraisal to proceed while coverage issues remain unresolved.
Trial courts must resolve all underlying coverage disputes prior to ordering an appraisal. An insurer does not waive its right to deny coverage merely by failing to deny it before suit is filed. The court rejected the "dual-track" approach allowing appraisal to proceed while coverage issues remain unresolved.
[1] A trial court must resolve all underlying coverage disputes prior to ordering an appraisal.
[2] An insurer does not waive its right to deny coverage by investigating a claim at the time an insured files suit.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“must resolve all underlying coverage disputes prior to ordering an appraisal”
Establishes the key holding that coverage disputes must be resolved before appraisal is ordered
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 suit against its insurer, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The insurer denied coverage after the suit was filed. The insured …
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 Motion To Compel Appraisal cases and more on FLexlaw
An insurer appeals from a circuit court order granting the insured’s motion to compel an appraisal before the court re*178solved the parties’ underlying coverage dispute. The insurer argues that the order conflicts with our holding that a trial court “must resolve all underlying coverage disputes prior to ordering an appraisal.” Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So.3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). We agree and reverse.
The insured argues that Corridori is distinguishable because there, the insurer denied coverage before the insured filed suit, whereas here the insurer denied coverage after the insured filed suit. According to the insured, the insurer’s failure to deny coverage before the insured filed suit constitutes a waiver of the insurer’s right to deny coverage.
We disagree with the insured’s argument. “ Waiver is the intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right or conduct which warrants an inference of the relinquishment of a known right.’” Aberdeen Golf & Country Club v. Bliss Constr., Inc., 932 So.2d 235, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citation omitted). We see nothing in the record which suggests that the insurer intentionally, voluntarily, or inferentially relinquished its right to deny coverage. Rather, the insurer still was investigating the claim at the time the insured filed suit.
The insured also argues that we should allow the appraisal to go forward while preserving the insurer’s right to contest coverage. In support, the insured relies on Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So.3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), in which the third district held that a circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an appraisal to go forward on a “dual track” basis while preserving the insurer’s right to contest coverage as a matter of law. Id. at 755.
We respectfully disagree with Rawlins’ recognition of a dual-track approach. We appreciate the third district’s rationale that the dual-track approach may save “ ‘judicial resources which might otherwise be required in resolving the factual and legal issues involved in the [coverage issue] by a relatively swift and informal decision by the appraisers as to the amount of the loss.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). However, we believe that “[a] finding of liability necessarily precedes a determination of damages.” Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246, 1262-63 (Fla.2006). We certify conflict with Rawlins.
Reversed.
MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 172 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…. . We note, however, that the Fourth District Court of Appeal has specifically held that the trial court must resolve coverage issues before sending the parties to appraisal to determine damages. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Michigan Condo. Ass’n, 46 So. 3d 177, 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (certifying conflict with this Court's decision in Rawlins on this precise issue); Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So. 3d 129, 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). . We note that this is not the first time this Court has been…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Demetrescu, 137 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…to ordering an appraisal. See Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So. 3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). This is because a finding of liability necessarily precedes a determination of damages. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mich. Condo. Ass’n, 46 So. 3d 177, 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (rejecting Third District’s dual-track approach, which allows the appraisal to go forward while preserving the insurer’s right to contest coverage). “Appraisal exists for a limited purpose — the determination of ‘the amount…
-
Am. Cap. Assurance Corp. v. Palmetto Dunes at Pelican Sound Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…CA Jan. 20, 2021). As this court did in Leeward Bay and Cayman I, we certify conflict with Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Demetrescu, 137 So. 3d 500, 502-03 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Michigan Condominium Ass'n, 46 So. 3d 177, 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), and Sunshine State Insurance Co. v. Corridori, 28 So. 3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Affirmed; conflict certified. NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Howard A. Engle, M.D. v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006)
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Aberdeen Golf & Country Club v. Bliss Constr., Inc., 932 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Graham v. State, 28 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)