Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): appraisal clause under the circumstances here presented when the insurer admits liability for the loss and the remaining issues deal with the extent of loss that falls within the admitted coverage. Florida courts have determined that an appraisal clause is available to resolve disputes over the amount of loss when the insurer admits that the loss is covered. See Kendall Lakes Townhomes Developers, Inc. v. Agricultural Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 916 So.2d 12, 15 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2005) (noting that, under Florida Supreme Court precedent, “when the insurer admits that there is a covered loss, but there is a disagreement on the amount of loss, it is for the appraisers to arrive at the amount to be paid”). See also Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>). The Johnson court further stated: “ “Very 
 Holding statements: (A) holding there can be no claim for bad faith when an insurer has promptly denied a claim that is in fact not covered (B) holding that the vpl requires an insurer to pay the full value of the policy only when a covered peril causes a total loss (C) holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage (D) holding that causation is a coverage question for the court when an insurer wholly denies that there is a covered loss and an amountofloss question for the appraisal panel when an insurer admits that there is a covered loss the amount of which is disputed (E) holding that the degree of the loss of use of a body part is a question of fact whether the loss is for all practical intents and purposes is a question of law
Output (English): holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage