Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Castilla

• Decision Date: 30 September 2009
• Docket Number: No. 4D09-103.,4D09-103.
• Citation: 18 So.3d 703
• Parties: FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. Jorge and Helena CASTILLA, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

18 So.3d 703

FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. Jorge and Helena CASTILLA, Appellees.

No. 4D09-103.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

September 30, 2009.

Rehearing Denied October 30, 2009.

Helen Ann Hauser of Restani, Dittmar & Hauser, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellant.

Shaib Y. Rios of Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Boca Raton, for appellees.

WARNER, J.

Appellant Florida Insurance Guaranty Association ("FIGA") appeals the non-final order denying its motion to compel an appraisal of property damage pursuant to its policy terms. The trial court denied the motion without explanation. We reverse, concluding that FIGA had properly raised and asserted its appraisal rights.

Jorge and Helena Castilla timely filed an insurance claim with Florida Preferred Property Insurance Company ("PPI"), alleging that their home sustained damages when Hurricane Wilma struck in October 2005. PPI issued a check for the claim, which the Castillas found insufficient and objected. When PPI was liquidated and taken over by FIGA, the Castillas re-raised their claim with FIGA. FIGA inspected the property and denied the additional claim, determining that the damages were not caused by the hurricane. The Castillas hired their own appraiser who set the damages at $93,000.

When FIGA did not accept the claim, the Castillas filed a complaint against FIGA for breach of the insurance contract in May 2008. The complaint alleged that they furnished FIGA with timely notice of loss and performed all conditions precedent to recover under the policy and the applicable Florida Statutes. FIGA refused to pay for the losses.

FIGA filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the Castillas had failed to fulfill their contractual obligations, listing the various policy provisions regarding the insureds' duties after a loss. It also cited to the provisions permitting the appraisal process and reproduced portions of the insurance contract, including the appraisal terms. Two months after the complaint was filed, FIGA determined that the patio damage was a covered loss and told the Castillas that it would formally withdraw its previous denial of the claim. FIGA filed an amended motion to dismiss or abate the action, referencing its withdrawal of the claim denial and rearguing that the Castillas failed to satisfy all conditions precedent, including the appraisal process. FIGA requested that the Castillas provide documentation to substantiate their claim and requested that they submit to an examination under oath. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss or abate, ordering FIGA to answer the complaint.

In its answer, FIGA raised as an affirmative defense its right to appraisal pursuant to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy contract. The Castillas moved to strike the answer and affirmative defenses as a sham and argued that FIGA twice denied their claim without reserving any rights under the insurance policy. FIGA then filed a motion to compel appraisal pursuant to the insurance policy. FIGA contended that its denial of the claim did not constitute a waiver of its right to appraisal. The trial court held a hearing and denied the motion. FIGA appeals pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) (providing for review of non-final orders determining the entitlement of a party to appraisal under an insurance policy).

In United HealthCare of Florida, Inc. v. Brown, 984 So.2d 583, 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), we articulated the applicable standard of review as follows:

A trial court's conclusions regarding the construction and validity of an arbitration agreement are reviewed de novo. BDO Seidman, LLP v. Bee, 970 So.2d 869, 873-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). "In reviewing the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, the trial court's factual findings are reviewed under a competent, substantial evidence standard." Id. at 873. However, our review of a trial court's "application of the law to the facts found, is de novo." Id. at 874. As the trial court made no findings of fact or law, we review the order de novo, applying the relevant law to the facts available in the record.

Although United involved an arbitration clause, appraisal clauses are treated similarly to arbitration clauses. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 786 So.2d 645, 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Therefore, we apply the same standard of review.

The policy in question contained a clause requiring an appraisal of the amount of any...