Court Opinion

ID: 9904418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:35:53.783365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:37.702147
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

                                 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

STATE FARM FLORIDA
INSURANCE COMPANY,

           Appellant,

v.                                    Case No. 5D20-2415
                                      LT Case No. 2019-CA-1465

ROOF PROS STORM
DIVISION, INC., A/A/O
JESSE SCOTT,

          Appellee.
________________________________/

STATE FARM FLORIDA
INSURANCE COMPANY,

           Appellant,

v.                                    Case No. 5D20-2418
                                      LT Case No. CA19-1739

ROOF PROS STORM
DIVISION, INC. A/A/O JOHN DAY,

          Appellee.
________________________________/
STATE FARM FLORIDA
INSURANCE COMPANY,

            Appellant,

v.                                        Case No. 5D20-2419
                                          LT Case No. CA19-1478

ROOF PROS STORM
DIVISION, INC. A/A/O
WILLIAM AND ANNETTE HAVRISH,

          Appellee.
________________________________/

STATE FARM FLORIDA
INSURANCE COMPANY,

            Appellant,

v.                                        Case No. 5D20-2420
                                          LT Case No. CA19-1462

ROOF PROS STORM
DIVISION, INC. A/A/O
DAVID AND SUZANNE LAPLANTE,

          Appellee.
________________________________/

Opinion filed July 1, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court
for St. Johns County,
R. Lee Smith, Judge.

Bretton C. Albrecht, of Kubicki Draper,
P.A., Miami, for Appellant.

                                     2
Peter A. Robertson, and Joshua G.
Harris, of The Robertson Firm, PA, St.
Augustine, and William D. Stanford, Jr.,
and Jacklyn Bennett, and Terence P.
Keyes, and Damian B. Hunt, of
Construction Law Group, St. Augustine,
for Appellee.

HARRIS, J.

      State Farm Florida Insurance Company (“State Farm”) appeals the

final judgments entered in four related cases that confirmed appraisal awards

set by a court-appointed umpire. State Farm also appeals the denial of its

motion to overturn those same umpire awards in each case. We find that the

trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in these cases and that

accordingly, all orders entered below, including the final judgments confirming

the appraisal awards, are void.

      In these cases, four separate homeowners in St. Johns County, each

insured by State Farm, filed claims for hail damage to their respective homes.

Each homeowner subsequently executed an assignment of benefits under

their respective policies to Roof Pros Storm Division, Inc. (“Roof Pros”). State

Farm afforded coverage in each case but disputed the amount of loss.

Appraisers were chosen, but even subsequent to the appraisals, State Farm

and Roof Pros remained unable to agree to the amount of loss.

                                       3
      The appraisal provisions in each insurance policy authorized each

party to select a competent, disinterested appraiser. The two appraisers are

then required to select a competent, impartial umpire. If they are unable to do

so, either party may “ask a judge of a court of record in the state where the

residence premises is located to select an umpire.”

      Pursuant to this clause, State Farm initiated the proceedings below by

filing a Petition to Appoint Umpire. There was no accompanying complaint for

breach of contract, an action seeking declaratory relief, or any other action

contemplated by the Florida Constitution or Florida Statutes. And the

“petition” filed by State Farm cannot be construed as such. State Farm never

claimed that its insured had materially breached the policy, never asked for

specific performance from the insured, and never suggested that it was in

doubt of its rights or status under the policy. Likewise, State Farm failed to

allege any jurisdictional amount in controversy. See § 86.011, Fla. Stat.

(2019) (granting subject-matter jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions

to both circuit and county courts based upon “their respective jurisdictional

amounts”). Instead, State Farm’s petition merely asked the trial court to end

a stalemate by ironically seeking specific performance, not from its insured,

but from the trial court. On these allegations we are left to determine whether

the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court was properly invoked by the

                                       4
filing of a stand-alone Petition to Appoint Umpire. We conclude that it was

not.

       Subject-matter jurisdiction—the “power of the trial court to deal with a

class of cases to which a particular case belongs”—is conferred upon a court

by constitution or statute. Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So.

2d 179, 181 (Fla. 1994). Contrary to the initial position taken by State Farm

in this appeal, subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement

of the parties, and we find State Farm’s argument that the language of the

policy gave the court the necessary jurisdiction to appoint an umpire wholly

unpersuasive. See MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp., 771 So. 2d 32, 35

(Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

       Rather than file a breach of contract action or a complaint for

declaratory relief (either of which could have been among the “class of cases”

over which the circuit court would have had subject matter jurisdiction), State

Farm opted to file a non-existent cause of action to simply appoint an umpire.

As recently explained by our sister court addressing a similar petition, “Florida

Statutes describe many different civil petitions that litigants may avail

themselves of, but a petition to compel appraisal with a disinterested

appraiser is not (yet) one of them. Nor is there a recognized common law

cause of action for this kind of discrete claim.” State Farm Fla. Ins. v. Parrish,

                                        5
312 So. 3d 145, 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). A year ago, our sister court

concluded that this “would seem to be problematic.” Id. Our sister court was

right.

         The filing of a proper initial pleading is “essential to initiate an action.

. . . [I]ts purpose is to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.” Pro-

Art Dental Lab, Inc. v. V-Strategic Grp., LLC, 986 So. 2d 1244, 1252 (Fla.

2008). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(a) provides that “[t]here must be

a complaint or, when so designated by a statute or rule, a petition[.]” Each

party here acknowledges that there is no rule or statute allowing for the filing

of a petition to appoint umpire.

         At oral argument, State Farm argued that it is a common practice for

both insureds and insurers to initiate these actions through the filing of a

simple Petition to Appoint Umpire. In its supplemental brief, State Farm took

a different position, arguing instead that its own petitions filed below, which

sought no damages, alleged no jurisdictional amount in controversy, and

lacked essential allegations that would support a breach of contract or

declaratory action, were insufficient to invoke the trial court’s subject-matter

jurisdiction. Because we cannot fairly characterize the bare-bones petition

filed by State Farm as merely procedurally improper, we are compelled to

agree.

                                          6
      “Florida law clearly holds that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear and

determine matters which are not the subject of proper pleading[.]” Carroll &

Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24, 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). A lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction renders a judgment void. See Hardman v.

Koslowski, 135 So. 3d 434, 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

      We reverse the final judgments confirming these appraisal awards and

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Our decision is

without prejudice to either party being able to file a timely and appropriate

complaint alleging a viable cause of action.

      REVERSED and REMANDED

NARDELLA and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.

                                        7