MKL ENTERPRISES LLC, D/B/A DRIMAXX
v.
AMERICAN TRADITIONS INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
An insurer that tenders a check for partial damage admits coverage and does not wholly deny coverage, making appraisal the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism regardless of whether the insured disputes the amount.
[1] An insurer that tenders partial payment for an insurance claim admits coverage for the loss and waives any coverage defenses, making appraisal the appropriate forum for r…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Appraisals are appropriate where an insurance company 'admits that there is a covered loss, but there is a disagreement on the amount of loss.'”
Court stating the legal standard for when appraisal clauses apply
DriMaxx, a homeowner's insurance policyholder, filed suit against ATIC over a property damage claim. ATIC tendered a check for its estimation of cover…
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 Waiver Of Coverage Defenses cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D17-2632 _____________________________
MKL ENTERPRISES LLC, d/b/a DRIMAXX,
Appellant,
v. AMERICAN TRADITIONS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellee.
_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Tatiana Salvador, Judge.
March 7, 2019 M.K. THOMAS, J.
MKL Enterprises LLC (“DriMaxx”) appeals an order granting American Traditions Insurance Company’s (“ATIC”) motion to compel appraisal and abate litigation. DriMaxx argues the trial court erred by compelling appraisal prior to making a determination of whether an enforceable agreement exists and if ATIC is “wholly denying” coverage under the homeowner’s insurance policy. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
The standard of review applicable to an order compelling appraisal under an insurance policy is de novo. Fortune v. Gulf Coast Tree Care Inc., 148 So. 3d 827, 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ashe, 50 So. 3d 645, 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
2
Generally, ‘“[a]ppraisal clauses are preferred, as they provide a mechanism for prompt resolution of claims and discourage the filing of needless lawsuits.’” First Protective Ins. Co. v. Hess, 81 So. 3d 482, 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (quoting Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc. v. Olympus Ass’n, Inc., 34 So. 3d 791, 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). Appraisals are appropriate where an insurance company “admits that there is a covered loss, but there is a disagreement on the amount of loss.” Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So. 2d 1021, 1025 (Fla. 2002) (emphasis in original). By tendering the check, ATIC admitted coverage for some damage while declining to cover all repair costs. Thus, ATIC did not “wholly deny” coverage. See People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Tracey, 251 So. 3d 931, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Here, ATIC, the insurer, tendered a check for its estimation of covered damage. In so doing, ATIC thereby “waives any coverage defense it might otherwise have had.” Scottsdale, 666 So. 2d at 947. Furthermore, in choosing appraisal as the appropriate resolution forum, ATIC “admits that there is a covered loss.” Johnson, 828 So. 2d at 1025. The order of the trial court compelling appraisal is AFFIRMED. B.L. THOMAS, C.J. and, JAY, J. concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
First Protective Ins. Co. v. Colucciello, 276 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, 268 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Nordin (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
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
- Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2002)
- People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Tracey, 251 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. The Olympus Ass'n, Inc., 34 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Desalvo, 666 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ashe, 50 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- First Protective Ins. Co. v. Hess, 81 So. 3d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Fortune v. Gulf Coast Tree Care Inc./Florida Citrus Bus. & Indus., 148 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)