Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 27, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0256

Lower Tribunal No. 21-12826

________________

Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance

Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Angus Murray,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, David C. Miller, Judge.

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Carly M. Weiss and Lissette 

Gonzalez, for appellant.

Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, P.L., and Brian C. Costa, for 

appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company 

(“Homeowners Choice”) appeals from the trial court’s nonfinal order granting 

Angus Murray’s (“Insured”) ore tenus motion to compel appraisal and to stay 

the action pending the completion of the appraisal process.1 We reverse.

Homeowners Choice contends the trial court erred by granting the 

Insured’s ore tenus motion to compel because the policy’s clear and 

unambiguous appraisal provision provides that “both parties must agree to 

appraisal.” We agree. 

The language in the appraisal provision clearly and unambiguously 

provides “both parties must agree to appraisal.” Homeowners Choice 

informed the trial court that it was not agreeing to appraisal. Therefore, the 

trial court failed to give effect to the appraisal provision as it was written by 

granting the Insured’s motion to compel appraisal. See State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez, 70 So. 3d 566, 569-70 (Fla. 2011) (“If the 

language used in an insurance policy is plain and unambiguous, a court must 

interpret the policy in accordance with the plain meaning of the language 

used so as to give effect to the policy as it was written.” (quoting Travelers 

1 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) (stating that district courts of appeal have jurisdiction to 

review a nonfinal order that determines “the entitlement of a party to 

arbitration, or to an appraisal under an insurance policy”). 
3

Indem. Co. v. PCR, Inc., 889 So. 2d 779, 785 (Fla. 2004))); E. Fla. Hauling, 

Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 913 So. 2d 673, 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“When 

the language of an insurance policy is clear and unambiguous, a court must 

interpret it according to its plain meaning, giving effect to the policy as it was 

written.”). Accordingly, we reverse the order under review.

In addition to reversing the order under review, we briefly address an 

issue raised by Homeowners Choice to provide future guidance to the trial 

court. The parties were before the trial court pursuant to an Order to Report 

for Trial. During the pretrial hearing, the Insured’s counsel, without prior 

notice to Homeowners Choice, made an ore tenus motion to compel 

appraisal. Over Homeowners Choice’s objection, the trial court addressed 

and granted the Insured’s motion. By doing so, the trial court violated 

Homeowners Choice’s due process rights. See First Cmty. Ins. Co. v. Adjei, 

365 So. 3d 1208, 1210-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Based on the language of 

the trial court's order setting the case management conference, First 

Community clearly attended the case management conference prepared to 

argue only its pending motions to dismiss the complaint, to strike the 

complaint and for sanctions. Instead, the trial court placed First Community 

in the untenable position of defending against Adjei's unnoticed, ore

tenus motion to compel an appraisal that, in essence, was a thinly veiled, 
4

dispositive motion on the merits of their complaint. Because this did not 

comport with due process, we reverse that portion of the appraisal order 

compelling an appraisal.” (footnote omitted) (citations omitted)).

As we have reversed the order under review, we do not address 

Homeowners Choice’s remaining issue raised on appeal.

Reversed and remanded.