HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
CENTURY PARK CONDOMINIUM NO. 2 ASSOCIATION, INC.
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by ordering an unresolved insurance coverage determination and appraisal to proceed simultaneously on a dual-track basis, which preserves the insurer's coverage defenses while providing expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the loss amount.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by ordering a dual-track approach for unresolved coverage determinations and appraisals.
[2] A dual-track approach preserves an insurer's defenses to coverage while facilitating an expeditious and cost-effective determination of the amount of loss.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial court preserved the insurer's defenses to coverage, while simultaneously paving the way for a relatively expeditious and cost-effective decision as to the amount of loss.”
Explanation of why the dual-track approach does not constitute an abuse of discretion
Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company appealed an order compelling appraisal in a Hurricane Irma-related insurance claim brought by Century P…
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.
MILLER, J.
In this Hurricane Irma-related lawsuit, appellant, Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company, challenges an order compelling the appraisal of a claim filed by appellee, Century Park Condominium No. 2 Association, Inc. The trial court ordered the unresolved coverage determination and appraisal to proceed on a dual-track basis. Consistent with our decision in Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), we impute no abuse of discretion in this approach. The trial court preserved the insurer’s defenses to coverage, while simultaneously paving the way for a relatively expeditious and cost-effective decision as to the amount of loss. Id. at 754–55; see also Paradise Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. Reinsurance Corp. of N.Y., 685 So. 2d 937, 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (concluding dual-track approach avoids “adverse effects on the expeditious, out of court disposition of litigation” and saves “judicial resources which might otherwise be required in resolving the factual and legal issues involved in [coverage disputes]”); Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Wooden Fam. Tr., 321 So. 3d 346, 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“[The] motions were reasonable under the circumstances, [and the] participation in the litigation did not imply a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of [a] contractual right to compel an appraisal . . . .”); Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Branco, 148 So. 3d 488, 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (noting that lawsuit to establish coverage after coverage has been denied is not action inconsistent with right to appraisal because appraisal need not be sought prior to litigation). Accordingly, we affirm the order under review. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Century Park Condo. NO. 2 Ass'n, Inc., 321 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…effects on the expeditious, out of court disposition of litigation” and saves “judicial resources which might otherwise be required in resolving the factual and legal issues involved in [coverage disputes]”); Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Wooden Fam. Tr., 321 So. 3d 346, 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“[The] motions were reasonable under the circumstances, [and the] participation in the litigation did not imply a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of [a] contractual right to compel an appraisal . . . .”); Fla. Ins.…
-
Silvia v. Castle Key Ins. Co., 362 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…d a notice for trial. A few months later, Castle Key filed a motion for reconsideration. It argued that after the trial court denied its motion to invoke appraisal, this Court rendered its decision in Castle Key Insurance Co. v. Wooden Family Trust, 321 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), holding that an insurer that filed a motion for more definite statement did not actively litigate the case and waive its right to compel appraisal. While Castle Key did not move for a more definite statement in this case, it ar…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Branco, 148 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- N. Shore Hosp. & Totura & Co. v. Joseph, 685 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Century Park Condo. NO. 2 Ass'n, Inc., 321 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)