Allstate Ins. Co. v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 11 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D00-2464.,3D00-2464. |
| Citation | 790 So.2d 1151 |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Julian MARTINEZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Angones, Hunter, McClure, Lynch & Williams, and Christopher Lynch, Miami, for appellant.
Mintz Truppman Clein & Higer, North Miami; Lauri Waldman Ross and Theresa L. Girten, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and FLETCHER, JJ.
Allstate Insurance Company seeks reversal of a judgment confirming an arbitration award. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In 1992 Julian Martinez made an initial claim against Allstate for Hurricane Andrew damages, which claim Allstate paid. In 1997 Martinez made a supplemental claim for damages then invoked the appraisal clause of his policy and named his appraiser. Allstate's response was that Martinez had not complied with the policy conditions as he had failed to submit requested documentation and a sworn proof of loss; had not allowed inspection of the premises; and had not submitted to examination under oath. The record reflects that it took a substantial period of time for the policy conditions to be met by Martinez.1
Ultimately appraisal was ordered. Each party designated an appraiser, an umpire was appointed, and meetings were held to reach a conclusion as to the amount of loss. Prior to the meetings the trial court ruled that the appraisal process was to be conducted as an informal one, not a quasijudicial one. As a result the attorneys were not permitted to participate and no court reporter was present to prepare a record. The trial court based this ruling on its conclusion that the appraisal process was not governed by the Florida Arbitration Code, Section 682.01, et seq., Florida Statutes (2000). Ultimately the final judgment was entered, awarding to Martinez damages, as well as prejudgment interest from the date of loss, and costs.
Allstate first takes issue with the method in which the appraisal process took place; i.e., no attorney participation, no court reporter transcription, no quasi-judicial hearing. Allstate argues that the appraisal process is akin to arbitration therefore governed by the Florida Arbitration Code, and the complained-of omissions are in violation of that Code. However, appraisal and arbitration are not identical processes. Appraisers 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 appraisal process here.2
Allstate's other arguments have merit. The trial court erred when it ordered prejudgment interest to be paid from the date of loss. Rather, if Martinez is entitled to prejudgment interest it is to be calculated from the termination of sixty days after the date of the appraisal award.3 See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Blanco, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D1411 (June 6, 2001). Accordingly we reverse the award of prejudgment interest.
The trial court also erred by awarding costs to Martinez. The policy provides that each party is to pay the appraiser it chooses and equally bear all other expenses, including that of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co.
...contained in an insurance policy are controlling with regard to awarding costs associated with appraisal. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 790 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2001) (reversing an award for appraisal costs where the policy stated that "each party is to pay the appraiser it chooses and......
-
Three Palms Pointe v. State Farm Firm and Cas.
...So.2d 378, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (citing Florida Statute § 682.13 while confirming an appraisal award); also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 790 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (affirming confirmation of appraisal); Preferred Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Miami Springs Golf Villas, Inc., 789 So.2d 1156 (......
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill # 6 Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
...are chosen for and expected to act on their own skill and knowledge relating to the matters being appraised. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 790 So.2d 1151, 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sheaffer, 687 So.2d 1331, 1333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), disapproved on other gro......
-
Anoushfar v. Lexington Ins. Co.
... ... [and] need to ... 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 ... ...