Court Opinion

ID: 9405388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 14:11:06.415608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.690828
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed June 28, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1524
                       Lower Tribunal No. 21-27744
                          ________________

              First Community Insurance Company,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                     Kwaku and Beatrice Adjei,
                                 Appellees.

     An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Carlos Lopez, Judge.

     Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Mark D. Tinker (Tampa), for appellant.

     Font & Nelson, PLLC, and Jose P. Font and Christopher Herrera (Fort
Lauderdale), for appellees.

Before SCALES, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

     SCALES, J.
          In this first-party property insurance case, appellant First Community

Insurance Company (“First Community”), the defendant below, appeals the

trial court’s August 5, 2022, nonfinal order compelling an appraisal

(“appraisal order”) between First Community and its insureds, the plaintiffs

below, appellees Kwaku and Beatrice Adjei (the “Adjeis”). 1 Because the trial

court violated First Community’s due process rights by considering and

adjudicating the appraisal issue when no proper motion thereon was pending

or noticed for hearing, we reverse.

     I.     RELEVANT BACKGROUND

          On December 28, 2021, the Adjeis filed a complaint for declaratory

relief against First Community in the Miami-Dade County circuit court. While

not a model of clarity, the Adjeis’ complaint alleges, in relevant part, the

following:

          First Community issued a homeowners’ insurance policy covering the

Adjeis’ Miami home for the policy period between November 16, 2016 and

November 16, 2017. On or about September 10, 2017, the Adjeis’ home

suffered damage during Hurricane Irma, and they notified First Community

of the loss. First Community adjusted the loss and tendered a loss payment,

but the Adjeis’ claim the payment was inadequate. The Adjeis now seek a

1
    We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).

                                         2
declaration as to whether they may invoke the subject policy’s appraisal

provision without first complying with First Community’s demand that they

submit “evidence individually, or through qualified experts, [regarding] the

efficient proximate cause of the loss and/or the actual cash value of the

damages” sustained during the hurricane.

      Rather than file an answer, First Community moved below to dismiss

the Adjeis’ complaint on grounds that the pleading failed to adequately allege

a valid cause of action and that res judicata barred the lawsuit. First

Community moved separately to strike the Adjeis’ complaint as a sham

pleading and to impose sanctions against the Adjeis and their counsel

pursuant to section 57.105 of the Florida Statutes. The trial court, sua

sponte, then entered an order setting an August 4, 2022 case management

conference to entertain the following issues:

      The court intends to specifically address the following
      motion matter:

      Case Management Conference

      In addition, the parties shall be prepared to argue and address
      all pending motions and issues in the case, including time-frame
      to complete discovery, for filing dispositive motions, and trial
      settings.

(Emphasis added).

                                      3
          The only pending motions at the time of the case management

conference were First Community’s motions to dismiss the complaint, to

strike the complaint as a sham pleading, and for sanctions. At the case

management conference, though, over First Community’s objection, the

Adjeis’ counsel made an ore tenus motion to compel an appraisal. The trial

court granted the ore tenus motion and entered the appraisal order that, in

relevant part, ostensibly awards the Adjeis the very relief sought in their

complaint: 2

          The parties are ordered to attend appraisal within thirty (30) days
          of the date of this Order as ordered by this Court over
          Defendant’s objections. Plaintiffs did not file a Motion to Compel
          Appraisal with the Court and raised the Motion to Compel
          Appraisal ore tenus at the Case Management Conference on
          August 4, 2022.

After First Community unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of the

appraisal order, it timely filed the instant appeal.

    II.      ANALYSIS3

2
 The trial court did not adjudicate any of First Community’s pending motions
at this case management conference.
3
  “We review the factual findings in an order compelling appraisal for
competent, substantial evidence and the application of law to those facts de
novo.” Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Condo. Ass’n of Gateway House
Apartments Inc., 344 So. 3d 52, 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

                                          4
      “A trial court violates a litigant’s due process rights when it expands

the scope of a hearing to address and determine matters not noticed for

hearing.” Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake E. Condo. Ass’n, 547 So. 2d 198,

199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Although our record contains no transcript of the

case management conference and the appraisal order does not explicate

the trial court’s reasons for ordering an appraisal, we are still able to provide

meaningful review here because legal error is plainly evident on the face of

the record. See Ferry v. E-Z Cashing, LLC, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D681, 2023

WL 2776869, at *2 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 5, 2023) (“The absence of a transcript

does not hinder our review when a legal error plainly appears on the face of

the record.”); Klinka v. Klinka, 959 So. 2d 383, 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)

(“[W]hen . . . the deficiencies are obvious on the face of a final judgment,

record or order, the existence of a transcript of proceedings is irrelevant to

resolution of such claims and appellate review is not precluded.”).

      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

                                       5
essence, was a thinly veiled, dispositive motion on the merits of their

complaint.4 Because this did not comport with due process, we reverse that

portion of the appraisal order compelling an appraisal. See Epic Metals

4
  We reject the Adjeis’ argument that because their complaint sought to
invoke the subject policy’s appraisal provision, the trial court’s order setting
the August 4, 2022 case management conference put First Community on
notice that the appraisal issue would be resolved at that hearing. While the
Adjeis’ entitlement to an appraisal is undoubtedly one of the “issues in the
case,” we note that no “dispositive motion” on their complaint was pending
at the time of the case management conference. Further, even if the Adjies
had filed a dispositive motion and properly noticed it for hearing, nothing in
our record indicates that such a motion would have been ripe for
adjudication. See People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Ortega, 306 So. 3d 280, 284-285
(Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“The right to an appraisal is created by the insurance
policy and cannot be triggered unless both parties have complied with their
contractual obligations. . . . This Court’s precedent makes clear that where
there is a dispute over whether an insured has sufficiently complied with his
or her contractual duties so as to trigger the policy’s appraisal provision, that
dispute must be resolved before compelling the parties to proceed with an
appraisal of the disputed loss.”); see also Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s,
London v. Gables Court Condo. Ass’n, 357 So. 3d 759, 761-62 (Fla. 3d DCA
2023) (“[T]he trial court improperly relied upon counsel’s representations –
rather than evidence – in resolving disputed issues of fact and in determining
whether [the insured] complied with its post-loss obligations.”); cf. People’s
Tr. Ins. Co. v. Marzouka, 320 So. 3d 945, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Because
[the complaint’s claims for declaratory relief] . . . target[] the enforceability of
the appraisal and other policy provisions themselves, the trial court could not
have granted the motion to compel appraisal as to the breach of contract
claim without improperly and prematurely adjudicating these issues with
regard to the declaratory judgment claims.”).

                                         6
Corp., 547 So. 2d at 199; Carrol & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24,

29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“To allow a court to rule on a matter without proper

pleadings and notice is violative of a party’s due process rights.”).

      Reversed.

                                       7