SANS SOUCI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
AMERICAN COASTAL 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.
The trial court properly denied the motion to compel appraisal because the parties had not engaged in a meaningful exchange establishing a disagreement regarding the value of the property or amount of loss. The motion for reconsideration was properly denied because it raised arguments that could have been raised in the initial motion and was essentially a successive motion based on facts developed after the original motion.
[1] An appraisal provision in an insurance policy is triggered only when the parties have engaged in a meaningful exchange establishing a disagreement regarding the value of…
[2] A party seeking to compel appraisal must provide the insurer with a repair estimate and put the insurer on notice that its repair estimate and scope of repairs differ fro…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Simply put, the parties did not engage in a meaningful exchange sufficient to establish a disagreement regarding the value of the property or the amount of loss. . . . [T]he Association did not provide a repair estimate to the Insurer, or put the Insurer on notice that its repair estimate and scope of repairs was different from the Insurer's.”
This establishes the standard for triggering an appraisal provision: parties must engage in a meaningful exchange demonstrating a disagreement over loss value or repair estimates.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSans Souci Condominium Association sought to compel appraisal under its insurance policy with American Coastal Insurance Company. The Association file…
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 First-Party Insurance Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D24-0863 Lower Tribunal No. 20-8277-CA-01 ________________ Sans Souci Condominium Association, Inc., Appellant, vs. American Coastal Insurance Company, Appellee. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, P.L., and Paul B. Feltman, for appellant. Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, and Patrick M. Chidnese and Frieda C. Lindroth (Tampa), for appellee. Before EMAS, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
SCALES, J., concurring.
I concur with the opinion affirming both appealed orders and write only to explain this Court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction to review the Reconsideration Order. On April 12, 2024, the trial court entered the Appraisal Order. The Association filed its Reconsideration Motion nineteen days later, on May1, 2024. The trial court summarily denied the Reconsideration Motion without a hearing, rendering the Reconsideration Order on May6, 2024. On May 10, 2024, the Association filed its notice of appeal that identifies both the Appraisal Order and the Reconsideration Order as the challenged orders. We obviously have appellate jurisdiction to review the Appraisal Order because the order, denying the Association’s motion to compel an appraisal pursuant to the underlying insurance policy’s appraisal clause, is contained in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)’s schedule of appealable nonfinal orders. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). Our appellate jurisdiction to review the Reconsideration Order, however, is not so clear cut. Florida’s district courts of appeal generally lack appellate jurisdiction to review trial court orders that deny motions for reconsideration of nonfinal
Dissenting to his colleagues’ exercise of appellate jurisdiction over the order denying reconsideration, Judge Clark reasoned that (i) only those nonfinal orders included in the categories listed in rule 9.130 are appealable, and (ii) because motions for reconsideration directed toward nonfinal orders are not contained in that exhaustive list, the court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the order denying reconsideration. Id. at 294 (Clark, J., dissenting).
8 appealed within thirty days of the Appraisal Order (an appealable nonfinal order), we have, consistent with Alonso-Llamazares, exercised appellate jurisdiction over both the Appraisal Order and the Reconsideration Order. We are bound by the holding in Alonso-Llamazares.2 If we were writing on a clean slate, I would be inclined to dismiss, rather than adjudicate, the instant appeal as to the Reconsideration Order because, irrespective of when the appeal of that order was filed, as Judge Clarke’s dissent in Godfrey correctly notes, orders on motions for reconsideration of nonfinal orders are not listed in rule 9.130(a)(3)’s exhaustive schedule of appealable nonfinal orders, and are otherwise not appealable. Godfrey, 109 So. 3d at 294 (Clark, J., dissenting). While the trial court certainly has the authority to reconsider its interlocutory rulings, the trial court’s authority to do so does not enlarge our appellate jurisdiction beyond that prescribed by rule 9.130. Id.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Waters, 157 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 263 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- The Panama City Gen. P'ship v. Godfrey Panama City Inv., 109 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Prime Prop. & Cas. Ins. Inc. v. Allied Trucking of Fla., Inc., 338 So. 3d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Sawh, 194 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Samara v. Tenet Fla. Physician Servs., LLC, 317 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Solman-Staropoli v. Califano, 645 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- L&k Creation, LLC v. White Feather Managment, LLC, 339 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Ryland v. Beachside Physical Therapy, Inc., 302 So. 3d 509 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)