PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Damage/Loss / Appraise Away Says Florida’s Fifth DCA

Appraise Away Says Florida’s Fifth DCA

September 24, 2019 by Andrew Daechsel

Tug of war with rope with a stack of coins on topMany homeowners insurance policies allow the insurer or the insured to invoke appraisal to resolve disagreements about the amount of the loss. Nonetheless, when one party invokes appraisal, the other party will sometimes refuse to participate in the process, forcing the party invoking appraisal to obtain a court order compelling the other party to participate. Fortunately, the recent decision in Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, ICAT Syndicate 4242 v. Sorgenfrei, No. 5D18-3002 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 13, 2019), should help parties uphold and enforce their contractual appraisal rights in Florida.

Trial Court Refuses to Compel Appraisal of Homeowners Insurance Claim

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, ICAT Syndicate 4242 issued a homeowners insurance policy insuring the home of John and Deana Sorgenfrei. While the policy was in effect, Hurricane Irma made landfall in Florida and caused damage to the Sorgenfreis’ home. The Sorgenfreis made a claim for the damage, and Lloyd’s admitted coverage. However, Lloyd’s determined that the amount of the loss did not exceed the policy’s named storm deductible and thus declined to issue any payment on the claim.

Unhappy with this determination, the Sorgenfreis sued Lloyd’s for breach of contract. Lloyd’s filed an answer in which it again admitted coverage and asserted that the amount of the loss did not exceed the deductible. With its answer, Lloyd’s also asserted an affirmative defense of preexisting damage.

In addition to filing an answer and affirmative defense, Lloyd’s moved to compel appraisal, asserting that it was entitled to appraisal because the parties disagreed about the amount of the covered loss. The trial court denied the motion, refusing to compel appraisal.

Fifth DCA Reverses and Directs Trial Court to Compel Appraisal

Lloyd’s appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion to compel appraisal to Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. On appeal, Lloyd’s argued that because it did not “wholly deny coverage,” the trial court erred in denying its motion. The Fifth DCA agreed, reversing the trial court’s order and remanding with instructions to compel appraisal.

The Fifth DCA noted that, in Johnson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 828 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2002), “the Florida Supreme Court held that when an insurer does not wholly deny coverage, a disagreement between the parties as to causation presents an amount-of-loss issue to be determined, under the contract, by appraisal.” The Fifth DCA then explained that Lloyd’s did not “wholly deny coverage” because while Lloyd’s asserted that much of the loss claimed by the Sorgenfreis was uncovered preexisting damage, Lloyd’s did agree that a portion of the loss was covered but just did not exceed the deductible. The Fifth DCA held that because Lloyd’s did not wholly deny coverage, the trial court erred in refusing to compel appraisal.

Lessons of Sorgenfrei

The main lesson of Sorgenfrei is that it is generally reversible error for a trial court to deny a party’s contractual right to appraisal if the insurer acknowledges that at least some portion of the loss is covered.

Additionally, Sorgenfrei indicates that filing an answer and affirmative defenses does not waive the contractual right to appraisal. This is so because Lloyd’s answered and asserted an affirmative defense, but the Fifth DCA rejected (albeit without explanation) the Sorgenfreis’ argument that Lloyd’s had waived the contractual right to appraisal.

Finally, the Fifth DCA’s statement that a disagreement about the amount of the loss is an “issue to be determined, under the contract, by appraisal” generally supports the proposition that it is not improper for a party to invoke appraisal to resolve a disagreement about the amount of the loss.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Florida Court Holds It Was “Miscarriage of Justice” to Deny Insurer Award of Appellate Fees

Next Article »

Seventh Circuit Reverses Prior Ruling After Reexamining Exclusion Clause

About Andrew Daechsel

Andrew Daechsel is an associate at Carlton Fields in West Palm Beach, Florida. Connect with Andrew on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. Texas Supreme Court Clarifies When Insured May Recover Policy Benefits
  2. New York Court Upholds Suit Limitation Period, Ruling Appraisal is Not a Condition Precedent to Filing Suit
  3. Florida Supreme Court Decides that Concurrent Causes Equal Coverage
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing