Court Opinion

ID: 9899034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 20:00:44.301762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:20.005109
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13788     Document: 30-1        Date Filed: 11/15/2023   Page: 1 of 11

                                                       [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                            ____________________

                                  No. 22-13788
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

        BRAR HOSPITALITY INC,
        d.b.a. Quality Inn & Suites,
                                                          Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY,
        RENNAISSANCE RE SYNDICATE 1458 LLOYD'S,

                                                     Defendants-Appellants.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-13788      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13788

                    D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-09417-TKW-ZCB
                           ____________________

        Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Mt. Hawley Insurance and Renaissance Re Syndicate 1458
        Lloyd’s (collectively, “the Insurers”) appeal the district court’s or-
        der granting Brar Hospitality, Inc.’s, motion to compel appraisal
        and stay the case pending the appraisal process. This insurance
        contract dispute arises from Brar’s first-party claim for property in-
        surance benefits following Hurricane Sally under an insurance pol-
        icy issued by the Insurers for coverage of property owned by Brar
        (the “Policy”).
                After the Insurers filed their appeal, we issued a jurisdic-
        tional question to the parties asking them to address whether we
        had jurisdiction to review the district court’s order compelling ap-
        praisal and staying the case pending completion of the appraisal
        process. Then, during briefing in this appeal, this Court decided
        Positano Place at Naples I Condominium Association, Inc. v. Empire In-
        demnity Insurance Co., 84 F.4th 1241 (11th Cir. 2023), in which this
        Court found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over an order that
        compelled appraisal and stayed the proceedings pending appraisal.
        As explained below, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the
        district court's order compelling appraisal and staying the proceed-
        ings pending appraisal for the reasons stated in our recent decision
        in Positano Place. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-13788      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 3 of 11

        22-13788               Opinion of the Court                        3

                      I.     RELEVANT BACKGROUND
               We presume that the parties are familiar with the facts of the
        case and only discuss those facts necessary for resolution of the ap-
        peal. The Insurers issued the Policy to Brar for coverage of prop-
        erty located in Pensacola, Florida, which operates as a hotel (the
        “Property”). Of relevance here, the Policy contained an appraisal
        provision stating that, if the parties disagreed on the value of the
        Property or the amount of loss, either party could make a written
        demand for appraisal. The appraisal provision also provided that,
        if there was an appraisal, the Insurers retained their right to deny
        the claim.
               In September 2020, Hurricane Sally made landfall west of
        the Property. Brar subsequently filed a first-party claim for prop-
        erty insurance benefits under the Policy, claiming that Hurricane
        Sally damaged the Property and the damage was covered by the
        Policy. The Insurers hired a third-party company to inspect the
        Property. Following the inspection, the company reported that
        only some of Brar’s claimed damages to the Property was storm-
        related. Relying on this report, the Insurers informed Brar on No-
        vember 30, 2020, that the cost to repair damage potentially attribut-
        able to Hurricane Sally did not exceed the Policy’s deductible of
        $262,287.48. More than a year later, Brar presented the Insurers
        with a proof of loss totaling over $3,000,000, along with reports and
        proposals to repair and replace damage that the Insurers had found
        was not covered by the Policy. Brar subsequently demanded ap-
        praisal.
USCA11 Case: 22-13788       Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023      Page: 4 of 11

        4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13788

                The parties did not resolve the dispute, and Brar filed a com-
        plaint against the Insurers in Florida state court for breach of con-
        tract, alleging that the Insurers had breached the Policy by refusing
        to timely provide adequate compensation for the damage to the
        Property under the Policy’s terms. Brar then moved to compel ap-
        praisal and stay the proceedings in state court. On December 23,
        2022, the Insurers removed the action to federal court on the basis
        of diversity jurisdiction.
                Following the Insurers’ removal, the Insurers filed an an-
        swer and affirmative defenses, in which they raised various cover-
        age defenses against Brar. Brar then moved to compel appraisal
        under the Policy’s appraisal provision and stay the proceedings
        pending appraisal in federal court. The district court granted Brar’s
        motion. Of relevance to this appeal, the district court noted that,
        under Florida law, “causation is an amount-of-loss issue for the ap-
        praisers where the insurer determines that there has been a covered
        loss and merely disputes that all of the claimed damages are cov-
        ered.” The district court noted that the Insurers had admitted that
        the Property had suffered damage from a covered peril and that a
        portion of the damage was covered under the Policy. Thus, the
        district court explained, “the parties’ dispute as to whether and to
        what extent the loss claimed by Plaintiff is covered under the policy
        is an amount-of-loss issue for the appraisers.” As a result, the dis-
        trict court ordered the parties to submit their disagreement on the
        amount of loss to an appraisal in accordance with the Policy, (2)
        stayed the case pending completion of the appraisal process, and
        (3) ordered the parties to file a joint report within ninety days of its
USCA11 Case: 22-13788          Document: 30-1   Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 5 of 11

        22-13788                  Opinion of the Court                       5

        order detailing the status of the appraisal process and any need for
        further proceedings in the court.
               This appeal ensued. After the Insurers filed their notice of
        appeal, we issued a jurisdictional question to the parties asking
        them to address whether we had jurisdiction to review the district
        court’s order compelling appraisal and staying the case pending ap-
        praisal, including whether such an order should be treated like an
        order compelling arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act
        (“FAA”) or an order granting an injunction. We carried the juris-
        dictional issue with the case and now address it in this opinion.
                         II.      STANDARD OF REVIEW
               We review de novo an order granting a party's motion to
        compel appraisal. Positano Place, 84 F.4th at 1247. We also review
        de novo our appellate jurisdiction. Id.
                                    III.   ANALYSIS
                “We have a duty to assure ourselves of our jurisdiction at all
        times in the appellate process.” Thomas v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys.,
        Inc., 972 F.3d 1195, 1200 (11th Cir. 2020). Thus, we must first de-
        termine whether we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s
        order compelling appraisal and staying the proceedings pending ap-
        praisal. See World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th
        Cir. 2009).
                For an order to be appealable, it “must either be final or fall
        into a specific class of interlocutory orders that are made appealable
        by statute or jurisprudential exception.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of
USCA11 Case: 22-13788      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023      Page: 6 of 11

        6                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13788

        Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); see 28 U.S.C.
        §§ 1291–92. “Title 28 U.S.C. § 1291 provides us with appellate ju-
        risdiction of final decisions of the district courts, while § 1292 pro-
        vides for review of certain classes of interlocutory orders.” Positano
        Place, 84 F.4th at 1248. Further, “for an order disposing of a request
        to compel arbitration, the FAA governs the appealability of such an
        order.” Id.
                We conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction over the dis-
        trict court’s order. We find our recent decision in Positano Place
        instructive. In Positano Place, we first held that an order compelling
        appraisal was not a final order reviewable under § 1291 because (1)
        the order contemplated further proceedings, (2) appraisal existed
        for the limited purpose of determining the amount of loss, and (3)
        “all issues other than those contractually assigned to the appraisal
        panel are reserved for determination in a plenary action.” Id. (quot-
        ing Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass’n, 117 So. 3d
        1226, 1230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)).
                We also concluded that an order compelling appraisal was
        not appealable under one of the classes of appealable, interlocutory
        orders under § 1292—specifically, § 1292(a)(1), which provides for
        review of orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dis-
        solving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.”
        Id. at 1248–49, 1254. In resolving this issue, we explained that “in-
        terlocutory appeals are inherently ‘disruptive, time-consuming,
        and expensive’” and “are generally disfavored.” Id. at 1248 (quoting
USCA11 Case: 22-13788         Document: 30-1        Date Filed: 11/15/2023         Page: 7 of 11

        22-13788                  Opinion of the Court                                7

        Prado-Steiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir.
        2000)).
                As a threshold matter, we determined that the order com-
        pelling appraisal was not an “explicit grant of an injunction.” Id. at
        1249. In doing so, we noted that: (1) the insured had “simply
        moved to compel appraisal” based on the insurance policy’s ap-
        praisal provision, and had not moved for an injunction nor sought
        any injunctive relief in its operative complaint; (2) the district court
        had not made the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law
        that normally support an order granting injunctive relief; and (3)
        based on how the district court characterized the appraisal order, it
        “did not intend to issue an injunction.” See id. (quoting Supreme
        Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2012)
        (Pryor, J., concurring)). And, we explained, “merely establishing
        that the order under consideration is a court order commanding or
        preventing an action, and enforceable by contempt, does not make
        it ‘an injunction’ under § 1292(a)(1).” Id. at 1250 (quoting Alabama
        v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 424 F.3d 1117, 1128 (11th Cir. 2005)).
        Rather, “[t]he order must also give ‘some or all of the substantive
        relief sought in the complaint,’” and “[t]he § 1292(a)(1) exception
        [to the final judgment rule] does not embrace orders that have no
        direct or irreparable impact on the merits of the controversy.” 1 Id.

        1 For example, we noted that “an order compelling discovery contains a di-

        rective by the court to act and is enforceable by contempt” but was generally
        not an appealable interlocutory order under § 1292(a)(1). See Positano Place, 84
        F.4th at 1250.
USCA11 Case: 22-13788      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 8 of 11

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13788

        (quoting U.S. Army Corps, 424 F.3d at 1128–29). Critically, we ex-
        plained that the order compelling appraisal “did not dispose of any
        of the claims or defenses in th[e] case” but “simply enforced the
        parties’ contractually-agreed-to, extra-judicial mechanism to calcu-
        late the amount of loss as to claims made under” the insurance pol-
        icy. Id. at 1251. “[T]he appraisal process is not remedial,” we rea-
        soned, and the result of that process did not entitle the insured to
        relief or judgment on its claims against the insurer related to the
        claims for property insurance benefits under the insurance policy.
        Id.
                Next, we explained that, under § 1292(a)(1), we also had ap-
        pellate jurisdiction over “orders that have the practical effect of
        granting or denying injunctions and have ‘serious, perhaps irrepa-
        rable, consequence.’” Id. (quoting Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Ma-
        yacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 287–88 (1988)). We summarized the
        requirements for such orders as follows: (1) “if the relief sought is
        not actually an injunction, then it must have the practical effect of
        an injunction”; and (2) “the appellant must show that the interloc-
        utory order of the district court ‘might have a serious, perhaps ir-
        reparable, consequence, and that the order can be effectually chal-
        lenged only by immediate appeal.’” Id. at 1252 (quoting United
        States v. City of Hialeah, 140 F.3d 968, 973 (11th Cir. 1998)). Apply-
        ing these requirements, we found that the order compelling ap-
        praisal in Positano Place did not have “serious, perhaps irreparable,
        consequence” such that it was effectively challengeable “only by
        immediate appeal.” Id. We noted that the order did not entitle the
        insured to judgment on its claims against the insurer. Id. Further,
USCA11 Case: 22-13788       Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023      Page: 9 of 11

        22-13788                Opinion of the Court                          9

        we explained that “while the appraisal process is binding on the
        parties as to the amount of the loss, [the insurer] can still pursue its
        defenses of coverage denials as a whole and to specific buildings
        owned by [the insured] in the district court once the appraisal pro-
        cess concludes.” Id. And, we stated, if the insurer was “unsuccess-
        ful in the district court following the conclusion of the appraisal
        proceedings, it can still obtain relief upon review after trial by ap-
        pealing any final judgment against it—meaning that the order is
        not effectively challengeable only by immediate appeal.” Id.
                As in Positano Place, we conclude that the district court’s or-
        der here is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1) because the order was
        not the explicit grant of an injunction and does not have “serious,
        perhaps irreparable, consequence” such that it was effectively chal-
        lengeable “only by immediate appeal.” See id. at 1248–54. The dis-
        trict court’s order here simply (1) compelled the parties to submit
        their disagreement on the amount of loss issue to an appraisal in ac-
        cordance with the Policy, (2) stayed the case pending completion
        of the appraisal process, and (3) required the parties to file a joint
        report ninety days from the date of the order detailing the status of
        the appraisal process and the need for any further proceedings in
        the district court. The Insurers retained the right to deny Brar’s
        claim in the event of an appraisal invoked under the Policy, and the
        Insurers have raised various coverage defenses in response to Brar’s
        complaint, which the Insurers may pursue once the appraisal pro-
        cess has completed. And if the Insurers do not succeed in the dis-
        trict court following the conclusion of the appraisal proceedings,
        they can still obtain relief upon review after trial by appealing any
USCA11 Case: 22-13788      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  22-13788

        final judgment against them, including on the choice of law issue
        as to the Policy that they raised in the district court. Accordingly,
        the interlocutory order compelling appraisal “does not implicate
        such serious or irreparable consequence to [the Insurers] as to sat-
        isfy City of Hialeah’s requirements.” See id. at 1254.
                Finally, as we explained in Positano Place, “even assuming for
        the sake of argument that the order compelling appraisal here fell
        within the definition of arbitration for purposes of the FAA, we still
        lack appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order.” Id. at
        1255. Indeed, the order compelling appraisal is not a final order,
        meaning that it is not appealable under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3), which
        provides that an appeal may be taken from “a final decision with
        respect to an arbitration.” And because 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(3) specifi-
        cally states that “an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory
        order . . . compelling arbitration” and because § 16(b)(1) makes “an
        interlocutory order . . . granting a stay” pending referral of arbitra-
        ble issues to arbitration not immediately appealable, “we lack ap-
        pellate jurisdiction over the order compelling appraisal even if ap-
        praisal were to be considered arbitration for purposes of the FAA.”
        Positano Place, 84 F.4th at 1255.
                               IV.    CONCLUSION
               For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district
        court's order compelling appraisal and staying the proceedings
        pending appraisal is an interlocutory order that is not immediately
        appealable under either § 1292(a)(1) or the FAA. We therefore dis-
        miss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
USCA11 Case: 22-13788   Document: 30-1   Date Filed: 11/15/2023   Page: 11 of 11

        22-13788           Opinion of the Court                    11

              APPEAL DISMISSED.