HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
VIRGINIA GARDENS CONDOMINIUM 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.
Heritage Property and Casualty Insurance Company appeals a trial court order compelling appraisal of an insurance dispute with Virginia Gardens Condominium Association. The trial court determined that the parties had a disagreement on the scope of a covered loss that was ripe for appraisal, rejecting Heritage's argument that the insured's repair estimate constituted a supplemental claim rather than evidence of a coverage dispute.
The trial court properly granted the motion to compel appraisal. The conclusion that the insured did not make a supplemental claim is supported by competent, substantial evidence, the determination that parties have a disagreement ripe for appraisal is correct as a matter of law, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting appraisal while preserving Heritage's right to raise coverage defenses.
[1] A repair estimate submitted by an insured may evidence a genuine disagreement on the scope of a covered loss supporting appraisal, and an insurer's characterization of su…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
The court citing Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Mango Hill Condominium Association to establish that trial courts have discretion to determine the procedural order of damages and coverage issues in appraisal disputes.
Virginia Gardens Condominium Association, as the insured, submitted a repair estimate regarding a covered loss. Heritage disputed whether this estimat…
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 Coverage Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Heritage Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Heritage”) appeals the trial court’s May 20, 2020 order granting Virginia Gardens Condominium Association, Inc.’s (“insured”) motion to compel appraisal.
After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the insured’s appraisal motion, the trial court rejected Heritage’s principal argument that the insured’s repair estimate did not evidence a disagreement on the scope of a covered loss, but, rather, constituted a supplemental claim. The trial court’s conclusion that the insured did not make a supplemental claim is supported by competent, substantial evidence and the trial court’s determination that the parties have a disagreement ripe for appraisal was correct as a matter of law; furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the appraisal to go forward while preserving Heritage’s right to raise coverage defenses.1 See Barbato v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D597, 2021 WL 1009274, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 17, 2021) (“Ordinarily, we review a trial court’s order compelling appraisal de novo as to the application of the law to the facts, and review factual findings for competent, substantial evidence.
However, we reiterate that ‘we have left it to the trial court's discretion to decide ‘the order in which the issues of damages and coverage are to be 1 Heritage argued below that the insured forfeited coverage by lying on the subject policy’s renewal application. We express no opinion as to the merits of this coverage defense.
determined by arbitration and the court.’’ Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass'n 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (quoting Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d 753, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).”) (citation omitted).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Va. Gardens Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D597 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
-
People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Edouard Marzouka and Marie Marzouka (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass'n 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Va. Gardens Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D597 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)