CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. HH03 61785
v.
OSBERTO JIMENEZ
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.
When an insurance policy endorsement unambiguously conflicts with the general policy provisions, the endorsement controls, and here the endorsement reserved appraisal rights exclusively to the insurer.
[1] An endorsement to an insurance policy controls over the body of the policy to the extent the endorsement is inconsistent with the policy's general provisions.
[2] An unambiguous endorsement to an insurance policy that reserves to the insurer the sole right to demand appraisal overrides a general appraisal provision in the policy's…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 law in Florida is clear that to the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the body of the policy, the endorsement controls.”
Citing Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hradecky to establish the controlling rule regarding endorsement interpretation.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London issued a property insurance policy to Osberto Jimenez containing a general appraisal provision permitting eithe…
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
Opinion filed March 17, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-164 Lower Tribunal Nos. 20-212 CC, 20-128 AP
________________
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Subscribing to Policy No. HH03 61785,
Appellant,
vs.
Osberto Jimenez,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael G. Barket, Judge. Law Offices of Clinton D. Flagg, P.A., Clinton D. Flagg and Carol A. Fenello, for appellant. Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez, & Martinez, P.L. and Anthony M. Lopez, for appellee. Before SCALES, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London appeals the trial court’s order granting the insured’s motion to compel appraisal in this first party property insurance action. While the insurance policy at issue contained a general appraisal provision permitting either party to demand appraisal, the policy contained an unambiguous endorsement deleting and replacing that general appraisal provision. The endorsement explicitly reserved to Lloyd’s the sole right to require appraisal. “The law in Florida is clear that to the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the body of the policy, the endorsement controls.” Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hradecky, 208 So. 3d 184, 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); see Fam. Care Ctr., P.A. v. Truck Ins. Exch., 875 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Even if there were an ambiguity between the endorsement and the body of the policy, the endorsement, which is clear, controls.”); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Levine & Partners, P.A., 848 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“[T]he terms of an endorsement such as the one sued upon control over anything purportedly to the contrary in any other insuring agreement . . . .”); Steuart Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 696 So. 2d 376, 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“[I]n general, to the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the body of the policy, the endorsement controls.”). We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s order granting appraisal upon the insured’s motion as the policy’s endorsement unambiguously reserved to Lloyd’s the exclusive right to require appraisal. Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Felton Emory Johns, Sr. v. Senn, 696 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Levine & P'rs, P.A., 848 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Fam. Care Ctr., P.A. v. Truck Ins. Exch., 875 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hradecky, 208 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)