NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ) 

ASSOCIATION, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-5453 

 ) 

DONNA FRANK, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed February 20, 2015. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 

from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; 

W. Lowell Bray, Jr., Judge. 

Hinda Klein and Diane H. Tutt of 

Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, 

Abel, Lurvey, Morrow, & Schefer, P.A., 

Hollywood, for Appellant. 

George A. Vaka and Nancy A. Lauten of 

Vaka Law Group, Tampa, and John E. 

"Jed" Thomas of Marshall Thomas 

Burnett, Tampa, for Appellee. 

NORTHCUTT, Judge. 

 Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, Inc., appeals a nonfinal order 

compelling an appraisal of a sinkhole claim by Donna Frank. As explained in this 

court's recent opinion in Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. de la Fuente, 40 Fla. L. 
- 2 - 

Weekly D123 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 7, 2015), appraisal is not available under the amended 

statute applicable to this case. 

 Few facts are necessary to resolve the limited issue before us. Frank was 

insured by Homewise Preferred Insurance Company, and she filed suit against 

Homewise after it denied her claim for sinkhole damage. When Homewise was 

declared insolvent on November 4, 2011, FIGA assumed responsibility for handling the 

claim. FIGA later admitted that Frank had a sinkhole loss, but the parties disagreed 

about the method necessary to repair the damage. Ultimately, the circuit court granted 

Frank's motion to compel an appraisal, a process provided for in the Homewise 

insurance policy. 

FIGA argues that appraisal is not appropriate under section 631.54(3)(c), 

Florida Statutes (2011). Part of the FIGA Act, §§ 631.50-.70, Fla. Stat. (2011), this 

statute excludes from the definition of covered claim "[a]ny amount payable for a 

sinkhole loss other than testing deemed appropriate by the association or payable for 

the actual repair of the loss." § 631.54(3)(c). It also prevents FIGA from paying the 

policyholder directly. Id. In de la Fuente, we addressed a similar case in which FIGA 

was handling a claim following Homewise's insolvency, and this court held that the 2011 

statute was applicable. 40 Fla. L. Weekly at D124 (relying on Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. 

Bernard, 140 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, No. SC14-1416, 2014 WL 

6883868 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2014), to hold that the applicable version of the FIGA Act was the 

one in effect on the date the insurance company was declared insolvent). Further, de la 

Fuente held that "requiring FIGA to participate in the appraisal process is at odds with 
- 3 - 

FIGA's statutory mandate to pay only for the actual cost of repair for a covered sinkhole 

loss." Id. at D125. 

Accordingly, we reverse the nonfinal order compelling appraisal and 

remand for further proceedings. As this court did in de la Fuente, we certify the 

following questions of great public importance: 

I. DOES THE DEFINITION OF "COVERED CLAIM" 

IN SECTION 631.54(3), FLORIDA STATUTES, EFFECTIVE 

MAY 17, 2011, APPLY TO A SINKHOLE LOSS UNDER A 

HOMEOWNERS' POLICY THAT WAS ISSUED BY AN 

INSURER BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE NEW 

DEFINITION WHEN THE INSURER WAS ADJUDICATED 

TO BE INSOLVENT AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

THE NEW DEFINITION? 

II. DOES THE STATUTORY PROVISION LIMITING 

FIGA'S MONETARY OBLIGATION TO THE AMOUNT OF 

ACTUAL REPAIRS FOR A SINKHOLE LOSS PRECLUDE 

AN INSURED FROM OBTAINING AN APPRAISAL AWARD 

DETERMINING THE "AMOUNT OF LOSS" IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE 

HOMEOWNERS' POLICY OF INSURANCE? 

Id. 

 Reversed and remanded. 

SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.