THOMAS BARBATO AND YVONNE BARBATO
v.
STATE FARM FLORIDA 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.
Thomas and Yvonne Barbato appeal a trial court order compelling appraisal of their insurance claim against State Farm Florida Insurance Company. The court affirmed the order, holding that where an insurer has only partially denied a claim, an appraisable issue exists as to the denied portions.
The court affirmed the order granting the motion to compel appraisal. Where an insurer has not wholly denied coverage, causation and the amount of loss constitute appraisable issues. The trial court has discretion to determine the order in which issues of damages and coverage are determined, and mere delay in coverage determination does not constitute grounds to deny appraisal.
[1] Where an insurer has not wholly denied coverage of an insurance claim, the causation and amount of loss become issues appraisable under the policy's appraisal clause.
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“where an insurer has not wholly denied coverage, causation is an amount of loss issue for appraisal”
Court citing People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Garcia regarding when appraisal is appropriate in partial denial cases
The insureds filed a claim with State Farm for property damage. State Farm partially denied the claim rather than wholly denying coverage. 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 Coverage Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
Methe & Rothell, P.A., and Kristi Bergemann Rothell (West Palm Beach), for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Thomas and Yvonne Barbato (the “insureds”) appeal from the trial court’s order granting a motion to compel appraisal filed by State Farm Florida Insurance Company (the “insurer”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Ordinarily, we review a trial court’s order compelling appraisal de novo as to the application of the law to the facts, and review factual findings for competent, substantial evidence. People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 263 So. 3d 231, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). However, we reiterate that “we have left it to the trial court’s discretion to decide ‘the order in which the issues of damages and coverage are to be determined by arbitration and the court.’” Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass’n 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (quoting Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d 753, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).
Contrary to the insureds’ assertions, our review of the record does not reveal that the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that the insurer only partially denied the sole claim of loss reported to it, or that an appraisable issue existed as to the denied portions of the claim. Compare Garcia, 263 So. 3d at 234 (“[W]here an insurer has not wholly denied coverage, causation is an amount of loss issue for appraisal.”), and People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Ortega, 306 So. 3d 280, 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“For there to be a disagreement, the insurance company must be put on notice that the insured’s damages estimate is different from the insurer’s estimate and scope of repairs.”), with People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Tracey, 251 So. 3d 931, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (reversing denial of appraisal, where insurer did not “wholly deny” coverage, since “[t]here is only one claim” and the loss “is unlike cases which involved separate buildings or separate claims”).1 Neither can it be said that, in this case, no reasonable judge would have required appraisal to take place before a coverage determination was made. The mere delay of a coverage determination caused by an order granting a motion to compel appraisal is not, without more, a basis to deny said motion. Cf. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d at 755 (“The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the appraisal to go forward on a dual track basis, while preserving all of Sunshine States’ rights to contest coverage as a matter of law.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Fernandez, 317 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…hat portion of the order denying its motion to stay and compel appraisal. Standard of Review When the facts are undisputed, an appellate court reviews an order denying a motion to compel appraisal de novo. People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 263 So. 3d 231, 233–34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Discussion receiving a written request from the other. The two appraisers will choose an umpire. If they cannot agree upon an umpire within 15 days, “you” or “we” may request that the choice be made by a judge of…
-
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Lago Grande 5-D Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…appraisal, factual findings are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence, and the application of the law to the facts is reviewed de novo. Where the facts are undisputed, a de novo standard of review applies.” People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 263 So. 3d 231, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (citations and quotations omitted). Here, because the facts are undisputed, we review the trial court’s order de novo. The Insurer contends that the order compelling appraisal should be reversed because it is premature an…
-
Meribeth Gratkowski v. ASI Preferred Ins. Corp., 351 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…aused by a covered peril . . . [and] [t]he court decides whether the policy provides coverage for the peril which inflicted the damage, and for the particular property at issue; in other words, all coverage matters. People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 263 So. 3d 231, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (alterations in original) (quoting River Manor Condo. Ass'n, 125 So. 3d at 854). As such, appraisal was not a coexistent remedy since coverage was wholly denied by ASI; therefore, the election of remedies doctrine is inappli…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Tracey, 251 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 263 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Philippe Pellicer, 294 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)