CERTIFIED PRIORITY RESTORATION, A/A/O ALBERT MOLINA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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 homeowner who received an assignment of benefits from an insured appealed an order compelling appraisal of an insurance loss, arguing the appraisal could not proceed without the named insured. The court affirmed, holding that the appraisal clause does not impose a non-delegable duty on the insured and thus the assignee can participate in the appraisal process.
The trial court did not err in compelling appraisal. The appraisal clause does not impose a non-delegable duty on the insured comparable to duties like examination under oath. Therefore, an assignee of benefits can participate in the appraisal process.
[1] An order compelling an appraisal of an insurance loss will be affirmed when the trial court did not expressly rule on the specific issue raised on appeal.
[2] An appraisal clause in an insurance policy can be invoked when parties disagree as to the amount of a 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“assignment of a right to payment under a contract does not eliminate the duty of compliance with contract conditions, but a third-party assignee is not liable for performance of any duty under a contract”
Establishes that while assignees must comply with conditions, they are not liable for duties that remain with the insured
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant received an assignment of benefits from an insured for home repairs. The appellant and State Farm Florida Insurance Company disagreed ab…
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 Insurance Policy Appraisal Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
*962 On Motion for Rehearing
The appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted in part and denied in part. We withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in- its place.
We affirm the order compelling an appraisal of an insurance loss. On appeal, the appellant, who was the recipient of an assignment of benefits from an insured for repairs to his home, claims that the trial court erred by compelling an appraisal “with the named insured.” However, the trial court’s order only-granted the motion to compel an appraisal. In the hearing on the motion, when asked whether it was requiring the insured himself to comply with the appraisal terms, the, court simply told the parties to work it out. The insured was not a party to the suit, and the trial court had no jurisdiction over him. The trial court did not expressly rule, in its original order or in its order on motion for clarification, on the issue that the appellant seeks to have this court address.
The appraisal clause of the insured’s policy can be invoked when the parties disagree as to the amount of a loss; The clause requires the appointment of appraisers by the insured (“yoú”) and the insurer. Selecting an appraiser is not one of the duties required of the insured under the policy in “Your Duties after a Loss[.]” The policy does not classify this as a duty of the insured, unlike the examination under oath,'which is considered a non-assignable duty. See Shaw v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 37 So.3d 329, 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (stating that “[assignment of a right to payment under a contract does not eliminate the duty of compliance with contract conditions, but a third-party assignee is not liable for performance of any duty under a contract”), disapproved on other grounds, Nunez v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 117 So.3d 388 (Fla.2013).
In One Call Property Services, Inc. v. Security First Insurance Co., 165 So.3d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), we held that policy provisions did not impose a “duty to adjust” solely on the insured. A “duty to adjust” was not a required duty of the insured under the policy provision for “Duties after Loss[,]” and thus -did not preclude assignment of benefits to a vendor providing services. Id. at 755. The reasoning of One Call applies to this case. Therefore, the trial court- did not err in compelling the appraisal;
Affirmed.
WARNER, DÁMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webb Roofing & Constr., LLC v. Fednat Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…g persuasive and by analogy applicable to this case, and we conclude that Webb Roofing is subject to the appraisal provision in the policy. We find further support for our conclusion in Certified Priority Restoration v. State Farm Florida Insurance, 191 So. 3d 961, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). There, the appellant was the recipient of an assignment of benefits from an insured for repairs to his home. Id. The parties disagreed as to the amount of the loss, and the court found appraisal to be appropriate under t…
-
SFR Servs., LLC v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)…nder a contract does not eliminate the duty of compliance with contract conditions, but a third-party assignee is not liable for performance of any duty under a contract . . . ."); see also Certified Priority Restoration v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 191 So. 3d 961, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). In Webb Roofing & Construction, LLC v. FedNat Insurance Co., 320 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), the Second District considered whether a contractor proceeding under an assignment of benefits from the insured was subject to…
Authorities Cited
- ONE Call Prop. Servs. Inc. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 165 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- David Shaw, David G. Shaw D.C., P.A. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 37 So. 3d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Merly Nunez v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 117 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 2013)