Court Opinion

ID: 9375986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 16:03:01.602264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.471579
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed March 1, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D22-436
                       Lower Tribunal No. 21-15835
                          ________________

      Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, etc., et al.,
                                 Appellants,

                                     vs.

         Gables Court Condominium Association, Inc.,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Vivianne Del Rio, Judge.

     Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, and Jason M. Seitz and Mihaela
Cabulea and Yoniece Dixon (Tampa), for appellants.

     Mintz Truppman, P.A., and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.

     EMAS, J.
                  ON PARTIAL CONCESSION OF ERROR

      Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (Lloyd’s) appeals the trial

court’s nonfinal order compelling appraisal and its subsequent order on

Lloyd’s motion for reconsideration. 1

      On appeal, Lloyd’s contends Gables Court Condominium Association,

Inc. (Gables Court) failed to fully comply with its post-loss obligations, thus

hindering Lloyd’s investigation of the claim. It maintains that, in light of

Gables Court’s failure to comply with post-loss obligations, the trial court’s

order compelling appraisal is premature because there is not yet a genuine

disagreement regarding the amount of a covered loss.            Lloyd’s further

contends that the trial court erred in finding Gables Court did not waive its

right to appraisal where (according to Lloyd’s) Gables Court engaged in

litigation conduct inconsistent with its appraisal rights.

      In response, Gables Court concedes partial error. It acknowledges

that, because there remains a factual dispute regarding whether Gables

Court complied with its post-loss obligations, the trial court erred by granting

the motion to compel appraisal without first conducting an evidentiary

1
  We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) (providing for
appellate review of nonfinal orders that determine “the entitlement of a party
to . . . an appraisal under an insurance policy.”)

                                        2
hearing. However, Gables Court disputes Lloyd’s contention that the trial

court erred by finding no waiver of the right to appraisal.

      Upon our consideration of Gables Court’s partial concession of error,2

and our independent review of the record, we reverse and remand for an

evidentiary hearing to determine whether Gables Court complied with its

post-loss obligations under the policy.

      “It is well-settled in Florida that all post-loss obligations must be

satisfied before a trial court can exercise its discretion to compel appraisal.”

State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Fernandez, 211 So. 3d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA

2017) (citing State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Cardelles, 159 So. 3d 239, 241 (Fla.

3d DCA 2015)) (“[A]n insured must comply with all of the policy's post-loss

obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered.”) (quotation omitted);

State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 172 So. 3d 473, 476-77 (Fla. 3d DCA

2015) (“[T]he party seeking appraisal must comply with all post-loss

obligations before the right to appraisal can be invoked under the contract.”)

“Until these [post-loss obligation] conditions are met and the insurer has a

reasonable opportunity to investigate and adjust the claim, there is no

‘disagreement’ (for purposes of the appraisal provision in the policy)

2
 Lloyd’s has, in essence, rejected Gables Courts’ partial concession of error,
contending there is no need for an evidentiary hearing because the existing
record establishes there is no appraisable issue at this juncture.

                                       3
regarding the value of the property or the amount of loss.” Cardelles, 159

So. 3d at 241 (quoting Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Galeria Villas Condo.

Ass’n, 48 So. 3d 188, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).

      Under the circumstances presented, the trial court erred in compelling

appraisal without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Auto Club Ins. Co.

of Fla. v. Santee, 347 So. 3d 451, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Upon review of

the record, we find that the trial court erred in granting the motion to compel

appraisal and stay litigation without first conducting an evidentiary hearing to

determine compliance with post loss obligations. Before compelling

appraisal, the trial court must determine that post loss obligations have been

met and that an arbitrable issue exists regarding the amount of the loss.”)

Specifically,   the   trial   court   improperly    relied   upon    counsel’s

representations—rather than evidence—in resolving disputed issues of fact

and in determining whether Gables Court complied with its post-loss

obligations. See People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Ortega, 306 So. 3d 280, 284 (Fla.

3d DCA 2020) (“[W]hen an insurer reasonably disputes whether an insured

has sufficiently complied with a policy's post-loss conditions so as to trigger

the policy's appraisal provision, a question of fact is created that must be

resolved by the trial court before the trial court may compel appraisal.”) See

also Echevarria v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 306 So. 3d 327, 329 n.2 (Fla. 3d

                                       4
DCA 2020) (observing that “unsworn legal argument of counsel is not

evidence”); Chase Home Loans LLC v. Sosa, 104 So. 3d 1240, 1241 (Fla.

3d DCA 2012) (“[U]nsworn representations of counsel about factual matters

do not have any evidentiary weight in the absence of a stipulation”); State v.

T.A., 528 So. 2d 974, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (“Although [an] attorney [is]

an officer of the court subject to disciplinary action for deceiving a judge by

a false statement. . . representations by counsel not made under oath and

not subject to cross-examination, absent a stipulation, are not evidence.”)

      Our decision in United Prop. & Cas. Ins., Co. v. Concepcion, 83 So. 3d

908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) is instructive. In Concepcion, the insurer appealed

an order compelling appraisal, maintaining that the insured’s motion was

premature because the insured failed to comply with its post-loss obligations,

e.g., to provide requested documents, to respond to material inquiries during

an examination under oath, and to provide a sworn proof of loss. The insured

countered that he provided the insurer with sufficient documents and

information to assess the claim, and that the trial court had “ample, sworn

documents in the court file, including answers to interrogatories, from which

it could conclude that he complied with his post-loss obligations under the

insurance contract.” Id. at 909.

                                      5
      We reversed the trial court’s order compelling appraisal and remanded

for an evidentiary hearing, noting that the trial court did not review any

evidence in determining whether the insured complied with his post-loss

obligations, and that “[t]he argument of counsel on this issue does not

constitute evidence.” Id. at 910.

      In similar fashion, the trial court in this case relied on argument of

counsel in reaching its decision, including counsel’s representation that any

documents not provided to Lloyd’s do not exist (e.g., meeting minutes and

invoices for completed roof repairs and repairs to the clubhouse interior).

Counsel’s arguments and representations were not made under oath, nor

was counsel subject to cross-examination by the opposing party. Such

representations and arguments do not constitute evidence. An evidentiary

hearing was necessary to resolve factual disputes regarding Gables Court’s

compliance with its post-loss obligations. See Sunshine State Ins. Co. v.

Corridori, 28 So. 3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[W]here the ‘insured

cooperates to some degree or provides               an explanation for its

noncompliance, a fact question is presented’ regarding the necessity or

sufficiency of compliance. . . . Whether appellees' compliance with the policy

terms was necessary or sufficient is a dispute of fact”) (citation omitted).

                                       6
      Finally, we do not find merit in Lloyd’s contention that Gables Court

waived its right to appraisal. Review of the record reveals Gables Court

consistently sought appraisal, and did not act inconsistently with the exercise

of that right. Gables Court invoked appraisal prior to filing suit; alleged in its

complaint breach of contract based in part on Lloyd’s denial of Gables

Court’s presuit demand for appraisal; and four months after suing Lloyd’s

(and two weeks after Lloyd’s filed its Answer), Gables Court filed its motion

to compel appraisal. The trial court did not err in determining that Gables

Court did not waive its right to appraisal under the policy. Heritage Prop. &

Cas. Ins. Co. v. Superior Contracting & Envtl. Specialties, LLC, 314 So. 3d

743, 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (“The courts have viewed the question of

whether a party's participation in litigation will be sufficient to act as a waiver

of the right to demand appraisal on a case-by-case basis, focusing on

whether the party acted inconsistently with this right”); Florida Ins. Guar.

Ass’n v. Branco, 148 So. 3d 488, 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“Because the

[insureds] demanded appraisal shortly after FIGA conceded coverage, and

propounded only a single request for admissions before seeking appraisal,

we view this case as closer to those finding no waiver”); Auto Club Ins. Co.

of Fla. v. Santee, 347 So. 3d 451, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Auto Club argues

that the insureds waived their right to appraisal by pursuing litigation. We

                                        7
disagree and conclude that the insureds did not waive their right to appraisal

because litigation is not necessarily inconsistent with the remedy of appraisal

and in this particular case, the Santees did not maintain a position

inconsistent with appraisal.”)

      We reverse the order compelling appraisal and remand for an

evidentiary hearing to determine whether Gables Court complied with its

post-loss obligations. We affirm the trial court’s determination that Gables

Court did not waive its right to appraisal.

                                       8