Court Opinion

ID: 9401046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 20:01:06.048905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.431069
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10713    Document: 59-1     Date Filed: 06/09/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10713
                          ____________________

       THE BREAKWATER COMMONS
       ASSOCIATION, INC.,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       EMPIRE INDEMNITY INSURANCE
       COMPANY,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cv-00031-JLB-NPM
USCA11 Case: 22-10713       Document: 59-1       Date Filed: 06/09/2023      Page: 2 of 5

       2                       Opinion of the Court                    22-10713

                             ____________________

       Before LUCK, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal concerns a pending insurance contract dispute
       between The Breakwater Commons Association, Inc., and Empire
       Indemnity Insurance Company, which issued an insurance policy
       (the “Policy”) to Breakwater for coverage of multiple buildings that
       Breakwater owns in Naples, Florida. We presume that the parties
       are familiar with the facts of the case and only discuss those facts
       necessary for resolution of the appeal.
              Following Hurricane Irma, Breakwater filed a first-party
       claim for property insurance benefits under the Policy, claiming
       that Hurricane Irma damaged its property and that the damage was
       covered by the Policy. After its investigation of the claim, Empire
       found covered damages to some of Breakwater’s buildings, but a
       dispute between the parties arose as to the amount of loss of the
       claim.
               Because of this dispute, Breakwater sought to invoke ap-
       praisal based on the Policy’s appraisal provision. The appraisal pro-
       vision provides that if the parties “[d]isagree on the value of the
       property or the amount of loss, either may request an appraisal of
       the loss, in writing,” sets forth the procedures of the appraisal pro-
       cess, and states that “[i]f there is an appraisal, [Empire] will still re-
       tain [its] right to deny the claim.” When Empire refused to go to
       appraisal, Breakwater sued Empire in Florida state court, and
USCA11 Case: 22-10713     Document: 59-1     Date Filed: 06/09/2023    Page: 3 of 5

       22-10713              Opinion of the Court                        3

       Empire removed the case to federal court based on diversity juris-
       diction.
              Following removal, Breakwater filed its complaint, alleging
       one count for declaratory judgment and one count for breach of
       contract. Breakwater later withdrew its count for declaratory judg-
       ment. In response, Empire filed an answer asserting various de-
       fenses against Breakwater’s complaint. Breakwater then filed a
       motion to compel appraisal and to stay the proceedings pending
       the completion of the appraisal process, which Empire opposed.
               Breakwater’s motion to compel appraisal was referred to a
       magistrate judge. The magistrate judge issued an order granting
       Breakwater’s motion as to its request to compel appraisal as set
       forth by the Policy but denied the motion as to its request to stay
       the proceedings pending appraisal. In doing so, the magistrate
       judge concluded that: (1) Breakwater did not waive its right to ap-
       praisal because it timely invoked the appraisal provision and never
       acted inconsistent with that right; (2) Breakwater was not required
       to file a motion for summary judgment or injunctive relief to in-
       voke appraisal; and (3) Breakwater’s lawsuit was not premature.
       The magistrate judge, however, declined Breakwater’s request to
       stay the proceedings because Breakwater did not present any argu-
       ment in support of a stay beyond the title of its motion.
              Empire objected to the magistrate judge’s order, but the dis-
       trict court overruled Empire’s objections, declining to modify or
       set aside any part of the order as “clearly erroneous” or “contrary
       to law” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). The district
USCA11 Case: 22-10713      Document: 59-1     Date Filed: 06/09/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10713

       court explained that the parties could seek appraisal through a
       breach of contract action and were not required to file for summary
       judgment to invoke appraisal. The court further explained that,
       under Florida law, appraisal determines only the amount payable
       under an insurance policy, not whether there is an obligation to
       pay that amount. The district court also found that Breakwater did
       not waive its right to appraisal and that appraisal was not moot.
       Empire timely appealed the district court’s order.
               During this appeal, we issued a jurisdictional question to the
       parties asking them to address whether this Court had appellate ju-
       risdiction over an order that compelled appraisal but did not dis-
       miss or stay the case. We also asked the parties to address whether
       orders compelling appraisal are treated the same as orders compel-
       ling arbitration for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.
              After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument,
       we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order
       compelling appraisal and staying the proceedings pending appraisal
       for the reasons stated in our recent decision in Positano Place at Na-
       ples I Condominium Association v. Empire Indemnity Insurance Co.,
       Nos. 22-11059, 22-10877, 22-11060, 22-10889 (May 31, 2023). In-
       deed, the order compelling appraisal is an interlocutory order that
       is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) or un-
       der the Federal Arbitration Act. See id. at 3–4. Accordingly, we
       dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
             APPEAL DISMISSED.
USCA11 Case: 22-10713     Document: 59-1     Date Filed: 06/09/2023   Page: 5 of 5

       22-10894              TJOFLAT, J., Dissenting                    1

       TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
              For the reasons expressed in my dissent in Positano Place at
       Naples I Condominium Association v. Empire Indemnity Insurance Co.,
       Nos. 22-11059, 22-10877, 22-11060, 22-10889 (May 31, 2023), I dis-
       sent to the dismissal of this appeal.