911 DRY SOLUTIONS V. FLORIDA FAMILY INS. CO.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 22, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D18-487 Lower Tribunal Nos. 17-306 & 17-5823 ________________ 911 Dry Solutions, Inc., etc., Petitioner, vs. Florida Family Insurance Company, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Appellate Division, Jacqueline Hogan Scola, Angelica D. Zayas, and Maria Elena Verde, Judges. Font & Nelson, PLLC, and Jose P. Font and Adam Friedman (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner. Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, and Anthony J. Russo and Mihaela Cabulea (Tampa), for respondent. Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LAGOA and LOGUE, JJ.

LAGOA, J.

Petitioner, 911 Dry Solutions, Inc. (“Petitioner”), seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Circuit Court Appellate Division granting Respondent,

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Juliet Elliston and Andrew Elliston (the “Insureds”) purchased an insurance policy from Respondent for coverage on a property located in Miami. After the Insureds’ property sustained a covered loss as a result of water damage, the Insureds contracted with Petitioner to provide water restoration services to attempt to mitigate damages, and assigned to Petitioner all insurance rights, benefits, and proceeds under the policy. After completing its work, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an invoice totaling $9,529.27 for services rendered. Respondent then secured a comparative estimate of the invoice valued at $2,484.42. Respondent paid the undisputed amount of $2,484.42 and demanded appraisal from both Petitioner and the Insureds to resolve the difference. Petitioner subsequently filed an action against Respondent in county court, seeking a declaration that it was not subject to the policy’s appraisal provision. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion to Compel Appraisal and Stay Proceedings. The county court compelled appraisal and stayed the proceedings pending the appraisal’s completion. Petitioner appealed the county court’s order to the Circuit Court Appellate Division. In response, Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The standard governing the disposition of a petition for second-tier certiorari in a district court is narrow: ‘[T]he district court must determine whether the decision of the circuit court . . . is a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’” A district court’s analysis of whether a circuit court’s decision constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law is limited to whether the parties were afforded procedural due process and whether the circuit court applied the correct law. DMB Inv. Tr. v. Islamorada, Village of Islands, 225 So. 3d 312, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (alteration in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Fernandez, 114 So. 3d 266, 269-70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)).

III.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Petitioner argues that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in dismissing its appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner raises two arguments. First, Petitioner argues that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) permits an immediate appeal of a county court’s nonfinal order determining a right to appraisal. Second, Petitioner argues, in the alternative, that the county court’s order was a final order entitling Petitioner to an immediate appeal. We find both arguments without merit and address each argument separately.