Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 3D00-843.
| Decision Date | 06 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D00-843.,3D00-843. |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. Luis SUAREZ and Lilia Suarez, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Angones, Hunter, McClure, Lynch & Williams and Christopher J. Lynch, Miami, for appellant.
John S. Cosgrove; Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellees.
Before LEVY, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
This is an appeal by an insurance company from an order granting plaintiffs' Motion to Confirm Appraisal Award. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Plaintiffs were insured by a homeowners policy with Allstate. The policy contained the following provision:
On August 24, 1992, plaintiffs suffered damage to their residence and personal property as a result of Hurricane Andrew. Allstate made payment on the claim in September of 1992. The plaintiffs disputed the value of the payment by Allstate and, in June of 1997, submitted a supplemental claim. Allstate denied the claim, contending that the amount paid in September of 1992 fully reimbursed the plaintiffs for any damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. The plaintiffs filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief and/or Petition to Compel Appraisal. The trial court granted the Petition to Compel Appraisal and appointed a neutral appraisal umpire. Two neutral arbitrators were appointed by the parties. Allstate sought a formal hearing under Florida's Arbitration Code.
The Florida Arbitration Code provides that See § 682.06, Fla. Stat. (1999). The neutral appraisal umpire determined that the Florida Arbitration Code did not apply and that the hearing should be conducted informally. As a result, Allstate was precluded from examining the plaintiffs or calling any other witnesses to testify. The umpire and two arbitrators rendered an award. The trial court entered a Final Judgment and Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Confirm Appraisal Award. Allstate moved to vacate the award, arguing that the appraisal hearing was conducted contrary to the provisions of the Arbitration Code. The trial court denied the Motion to Vacate and affirmed the award. Allstate appeals.
Both parties agree that the insurance contract contained an appraisal provision for the purpose of settling disputes relating to the valuation of a loss. Such provisions are common in homeowners insurance policies. Generally, appraisal provisions are treated the same as arbitration provisions. See United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So.2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
. Allstate argues that it was therefore entitled to have a formal appraisal conducted in the manner provided for by the Florida...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NCI, LLC v. Progressive Select Ins. Co.
...to compel arbitration. See Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Castilla , 18 So. 3d 703, 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citing Allstate Ins. v. Suarez , 786 So. 2d 645, 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ). The Florida Supreme Court has held that courts must consider three elements in ruling whether a dispute is arbitr......
-
Cotton States Mut. Ins. v. D'ALTO
...appraisal is not the equivalent of an agreement to resolve a dispute by arbitration. 833 So.2d at 766, approving Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 786 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The court disapproved of our opinion in Sheaffer, which involved a similar appraisal provision. Suarez, 833 So.2d a......
-
Anoushfar v. Lexington Ins. Co.
... ... meet only to iron out any differences in their ... opinions." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Martinez , 790 ... So.2d 1151, 1152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001); accord ... Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez , 786 So.2d 645, 647 (Fla ... Dist. Ct. App. 2001) ("[A]ppraisers are generally ... ...
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Martinez
...are expected to act on their expertise. They need to meet only to iron out any differences in their opinions. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 786 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 735 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We therefore see no impropriety in the appr......