CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CECILIO GUTIERREZ AND NOEMI GUTIERREZ, 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.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed an order compelling appraisal of a supplemental hurricane damage claim. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in ordering appraisal without first conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the insureds complied with the policy's post-loss conditions, which is a condition precedent to appraisal.
The trial court erred in granting the motion to compel appraisal and in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the insureds' compliance with post-loss conditions. The insured must comply with all post-loss obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered, and when a factual dispute exists regarding such compliance, an evidentiary hearing is required.
[1] An insured must comply with all post-loss obligations under an insurance policy before an appraisal clause is triggered.
[2] A trial court errs in compelling an appraisal when a factual dispute exists regarding the insured's compliance with the policy's post-loss provisions.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The insured must comply with all of the policy's post-loss obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered”
Establishes that post-loss compliance is a condition precedent to appraisal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe insureds' property was damaged during Hurricane Wilma in October 2005, and Citizens paid the initial claim. In September 2009, the insureds retain…
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
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appeals from an order granting the insureds’ motion to compel appraisal of a claim under a commercial property insurance policy. For the following reasons, we reverse the order.
On appeal, Citizens contends that the trial court erred in prematurely ordering the appraisal when the record establishes that a factual dispute exists as to whether the insureds complied with, the policy’s post-loss provisions. We agree. In October 2005, the insureds’ property sustained damage during Hurricane Wilma. Subsequently, they filed a claim with Citizens and payment was made to the insureds. In September 2009, the insureds retained a public adjuster, filed a supplemental claim for Hurricane Wilma damages, and demanded an appraisal. Citizens reinspected the property and the insureds provided Citizens with a contractor’s estimate and a sworn proof of loss. Citizens made numerous requests for additional information and documents, which the insureds allegedly failed to provide.
In May 2010, the insureds filed a breach of contract claim against Citizens and a motion to compel appraisal, alleging that they had complied with the post-loss policy conditions. Citizens filed its answer and response to the motion to compel, asserting that the insureds had not provided Citizens with requested information and documents related to the supplemental claim, and that the insureds’ compliance with the policy was a condition precedent to appraisal. Following a hearing on the insureds’ motion, at which the parties disputed whether the insureds were in compliance with the post-loss policy obligations, the trial court granted the motion to compel appraisal.
Based on the authority of Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Mango Hill Condominium Ass’n, 54 So.3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Galeria Villas Condominium Ass’n, 48 So.3d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), we hold that the trial court erred in both granting the motion to compel appraisal and in failing to conduct the requested evidentiary hearing concerning the insureds’ compliance with the policy’s post-loss conditions. See Citizens Prop. *179 Ins. Corp. v. Maytin, 51 So.3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the insured complied with the policy’s post-loss conditions); Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So.3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[W]here the ‘insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented’ regarding the necessity or sufficiency of compliance.... Whether [insured’s] compliance with the policy terms was necessary or sufficient is a dispute of fact.”) (citation omitted); see also U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So.2d 467, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding that “[t]he insured must comply with all of the policy’s post-loss obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered”). Accordingly, the order compelling appraisal is reversed and we remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the insureds’ compliance with the policy’s post-loss conditions.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Socarras, 276 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…al provision, a question of fact is created that must be resolved by the trial court before the trial court may compel appraisal. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Concepcion, 83 So. 3d 908, 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Gutierrez, 59 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass'n 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Maytin, 51 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).”); Am. Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So. 3d 905, 914 (Fla. 3d…
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 172 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…cretion to compel appraisal. Id. (holding that “an ‘insured must comply with all of the policy’s post-loss obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered.’ ” (quoting Romay, 744 So. 2d at 471)); see also Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Gutierrez, 59 So. 3d 177, 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing Romay for that same proposition after Mango Hill 12 was issued). Cardelles, 159 So. 3d at 241. Requiring that all post-loss obligations be satisfied before the trial court may exercise its discretion to compel appra…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Admiralty House, Inc., 66 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…the preliminary determination as to whether the insured’s demand for appraisal was ripe. We therefore reverse the order compelling appraisal and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing on that issue. See generally Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Gutierrez, 59 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (concluding that the trial court erred by prematurely ordering appraisal before determining whether the insureds complied with the policy’s postloss provisions). We note that “[o]nce the trial court determines that a demand for ap…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Juan and Julia Romay, 744 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Galeria Villas Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 48 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass'n 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Maytin, 51 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Graham v. State, 28 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)