Court Opinion

ID: 9954921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 14:03:38.665992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:06.385933
License: Public Domain

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.
      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”).

                                       2
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,

                                        3
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.

                                      4