Court Opinion

ID: 9895607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 22:01:02.973367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:39.701930
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10894    Document: 51-1     Date Filed: 11/07/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10894
                          ____________________

       CREEKSIDE CROSSING CONDOMINIUM
       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-00136-JLB-MRM
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10894       Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 11/07/2023      Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   22-10894

       Before LUCK, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              On our own motion, we vacate our prior opinion, and sub-
       stitute it with the following opinion. Empire’s motion for panel
       rehearing is denied as moot.
              This appeal concerns a pending insurance contract dispute
       between Creekside Crossing Condominium Association, Inc., and
       Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, which issued an insurance
       policy (the “Policy”) to Creekside for coverage of multiple build-
       ings that Creekside owns in Bonita Springs, Florida. We presume
       that the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and only dis-
       cuss those facts necessary for resolution of the appeal.
             Following Hurricane Irma, Creekside 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 Creekside’s buildings, but a dis-
       pute between the parties arose as to the amount of loss of the claim.
              Because of this dispute, Creekside sought to invoke appraisal
       based on the Policy’s appraisal provision. The appraisal provision
       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 process, and
       states that “[i]f there is an appraisal, [Empire] will still retain [its]
       right to deny the claim.” When Empire refused to go to appraisal,
USCA11 Case: 22-10894     Document: 51-1     Date Filed: 11/07/2023   Page: 3 of 6

       22-10894              Opinion of the Court                       3

       Creekside sued Empire in Florida state court, and Empire removed
       the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
              Following removal, Creekside amended its complaint, alleg-
       ing one count for declaratory judgment and one count for breach
       of contract. Creekside then filed a motion to compel appraisal and
       to stay the proceedings pending the completion of the appraisal
       process, which Empire opposed. Empire also filed an answer as-
       serting various defenses against Creekside’s complaint, as well a
       motion to dismiss the complaint. The district court denied Em-
       pire’s motion.
              Creekside’s motion to compel appraisal was referred to a
       magistrate judge. The magistrate judge issued a report and recom-
       mendation, which recommended the district court grant
       Creekside’s motion to compel appraisal as set forth by the Policy.
       The magistrate judge found that Creekside was not required to
       prove the elements of specific performance nor move for summary
       judgment for the court to compel appraisal under Florida law.
       The magistrate judge also declined Empire’s request to “impose
       guidelines or require specific processes during appraisal as that
       would amount to rewriting the parties’ Policy to add conditions for
       the appraisal process that were not part of the parties’ bargain.”
              Empire objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recom-
       mendation, but the district court overruled Empire’s objections
       and adopted the report. In doing so, the district court explained
       that the parties can seek appraisal through breach of contract and
       declaratory judgment actions and that a summary judgment
USCA11 Case: 22-10894      Document: 51-1     Date Filed: 11/07/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10894

       motion was not a requirement for a party to move for appraisal, as
       appraisal—which only determined the amount payable under the
       Policy, and not the obligation to pay that amount—did not entitle
       any party to judgment. The court also found that a stay of the case
       pending appraisal would not unduly prejudice or tactically disad-
       vantage Empire, noting that “discovery, of course, may resume
       upon completion of the appraisal process.” The district court thus
       ordered the parties to appraisal and stayed the case pending com-
       pletion of the appraisal process. Empire timely appealed the dis-
       trict 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, stayed the case
       pending appraisal, and directed the parties to file status reports on
       the appraisal process. 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, 2023 WL 6937601
       (11th Cir. Oct. 20, 2023). Indeed, the order compelling appraisal is
       an interlocutory order that is not immediately appealable under 28
       U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) or under the Federal Arbitration Act. See id. at
USCA11 Case: 22-10894    Document: 51-1    Date Filed: 11/07/2023   Page: 5 of 6

       22-10894             Opinion of the Court                     5

       *10–11. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate
       jurisdiction.
             APPEAL DISMISSED.
USCA11 Case: 22-10894     Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 11/07/2023    Page: 6 of 6

       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, 2023 WL 6937601
       (11th Cir. Oct. 20, 2023), I dissent to the dismissal of this appeal.