Case Name: Dorothy DELISFORT, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-05-30
Citations: 785 So. 2d 734
Docket Number: No. 4D00-2491
Parties: Dorothy DELISFORT, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: TAYLOR, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 785
Pages: 734–737

Head Matter:
Dorothy DELISFORT, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 4D00-2491.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 30, 2001.
Jay Calvert Cooper of Ennis, Cooper & Paige, P.A., Naples, for appellant.
Francis A. Anania of Anania, Bandklay-der, Blackwell, Baumgarten & Torricella, Miami, for appellee.

Opinion:
WARNER, C.J.
This is an appeal from an order compelling an appraisal in an action by an insured against her insurance company regarding damage to her automobile. Because the case does not involve disputed facts but merely contests an issue of insurance policy coverage, we reverse.
Appellant's automobile was insured under a policy issued by appellee, Progressive. In 1998, her car sustained damage. As a result, appellant made a claim against Progressive under the comprehensive property loss provisions of her insurance policy. After repairs were made at a facility authorized by Progressive, appellant was required to pay the balance that the insurance company did not pay. That included the $500 deductible and a $752.21 "betterment" deduction taken by the company. Appellant questioned the validity of Progressive's authority to take this deduction. Progressive tried to justify it based upon policy language that allowed it to consider depreciation of the vehicle.
Appellant first filed suit for breach of contract in county court alleging that Pro gressive breached its contract with her by taking this "betterment" deduction to which it was not entitled under the policy provisions. She then refiled it as a class action in circuit court when she learned through discovery that Progressive claims adjusters routinely included this deduction on repairs. Progressive moved to compel an appraisal, asserting that there was a dispute as to the amount of the loss. The trial court granted the motion, prompting this appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(a)(3)(C)(v). See Intracoastal Ventures Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 540 So.2d 162, 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(appraisal provisions in insurance policies are treated as arbitration provisions).
Issues of coverage are reserved to the court and are not the subject of arbitration. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Licea, 685 So.2d 1285 (Fla.1996); J.J.F. of Palm Beach, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 634 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Issues for arbitration or appraisal are restricted to resolution of specific issues of actual cash values and amount of loss. See U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So.2d 467, 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
While it may be debatable whether this is an issue of coverage or simply a contract construction issue, the issue presented in the underlying action is not an issue of fact. There is no disputed issue of fact as to the amount of the loss (the total repair), nor does the appellant dispute the amount of the depreciation or "betterment" deduction that the insurance company took. All she contests is the company's right to take such a deduction under the policy. This is an issue based upon construction of the policy language. It does not fall within the provision for appraisals.
TAYLOR, J., concurs.
FARMER, J., concurs specially with opinion.