State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Parrish
Decision Date | 06 January 2021 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2D19-130 |
Parties | STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Jon PARRISH, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kara Rockenbach Link and Daniel M. Schwarz of Link & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; and Robert A. Kingsford and Lynn S. Alfano of Alfano Kingsford, P.A., Maitland, for Appellant.
Mark A. Boyle, Gregory L. Evans, and Alicia M. Lopez of Boyle Leonard & Anderson, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellee.
State Farm Florida Insurance Company (State Farm) and its insured, Jon Parrish, find themselves in a dispute over who can appraise the value of Mr. Parrish's covered loss. Although we question the manner in which the dispute was presented below, because the judgment the circuit court entered was indeed a final judgment, we exercise our jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A). With the benefit of the parties' briefs, oral argument, and supplemental briefs, we conclude that State Farm's argument on appeal is well taken. Mr. Parrish will need to select someone other than his public adjuster to serve as a "disinterested appraiser" of his claim.
In 2017, Mr. Parrish submitted a claim to State Farm under his homeowners insurance policy, asserting that his house had sustained damage from Hurricane Irma. He retained a public adjusting company, Keys Claims Consultants, Inc. (KCC), to represent his interests regarding his claim. Pursuant to his contract with KCC, KCC agreed to "prepare a detailed accounting of the damages and present them" to State Farm. KCC would "negotiate the damages with the insurance company representative(s)" and was authorized to invoke "the Appraisal provision" under Mr. Parrish's insurance policy. In return, Mr. Parrish assigned to KCC ten percent "of all insurance funds, contractual and extra contractual, received" by Mr. Parrish. Mr. Parrish also gave KCC "a right to be paid as a joint payee" of State Farm under his contract with KCC.
On January 8, 2018, Bobby Sims, a KCC public adjuster, forwarded Mr. Parrish's executed sworn statement in proof of loss to State Farm which valued Mr. Parrish's loss at $495,079.25. Along with the sworn statement, Mr. Sims requested that any dispute over the amount of loss be submitted to appraisal pursuant to the policy.
The specific policy provision Mr. Sims was invoking on behalf of his client reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
The appraisers shall then set the amount of the loss.
In his correspondence to State Farm, Mr. Sims designated George Keys, the president and namesake of KCC, as Mr. Parrish's "disinterested appraiser." Not surprisingly, State Farm objected to his selection; it also disagreed with the amount Mr. Parrish claimed as his loss.1 State Farm issued its own demand for appraisal and appointed Bob Davis of Davis Claim Management as its appraiser. It also asked Mr. Parrish to choose a different appraiser. When Mr. Parrish did not respond, State Farm initiated an action—of some sort—in the circuit court.
On May 5, 2018, State Farm filed a "Petition to Compel Appraisal with Disinterested Appraiser." This "petition" set forth in enumerated paragraphs a sequence of factual allegations (not unlike a civil cause of action), a separate section of legal argument explaining why, in State Farm's view, Mr. Keys should not be allowed to serve as a disinterested appraiser under the policy, and a request that the court "enter an order compelling [Mr. Parrish] to participate in appraisal with a disinterested appraiser not affiliated with Keys Claims Consulting, Inc." Mr. Parrish responded to the petition as if it were a civil action, admitting and denying the factual allegations and setting out his own "Legal Argument in Response to Petitioner's Argument." He addressed the legal issue of whether the appraiser he had named was "disinterested." Additionally, he argued that the petition should be dismissed because it was premature and because State Farm had waived its ability to object to his designation. None of his arguments, however, challenged State Farm's choice of filing what purports to be a petition to judicially compel him to appoint a different appraiser in this dispute.
The circuit court proceeded to set a hearing on State Farm's petition—though whether that was a "trial" or, as State Farm puts it, a procedure that "functioned much like a final summary judgment hearing," it is not entirely clear. Regardless, on December 18, 2018, the circuit court entered the order now before us in which the court determined that Mr. Keys could serve as a disinterested appraiser despite his company's contractual relationship with Mr. Parrish and the ten percent contingency fee KCC would earn from any payment Mr. Parrish received from his claim. The order both denied the petition and then stated that it was "hereby dismissed in its entirety." The court ordered the parties to proceed to appraisal and retained jurisdiction to award Mr. Parrish his attorney's fees and costs in connection with the petition.
State Farm now appeals that order.
At the outset, we confess we have some confusion, as well as reservations, about what it is we have been asked to review. Florida Statutes describe many different civil petitions that litigants may avail themselves of, but a petition to compel appraisal with a disinterested appraiser is not (yet) one of them. Nor is there a recognized common law cause of action for this kind of discrete claim. That would seem to be problematic. Cf. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 76 So. 3d 34, 37, 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ( ).
It was because of this concern that, following oral argument, we requested supplemental briefing from the parties as to whether we should convert this appeal to a petition for a writ of certiorari. Mr. Parrish readily agreed that we should (and then, as such, deny State Farm certiorari relief). State Farm maintained that its petition to compel disinterested appraiser could be likened to a declaratory judgment action. The difficulty with that, of course, is that State Farm's petition did not actually seek a declaratory judgment or include any allegation that State Farm was in doubt of a right, status, immunity, or privilege and was entitled to have that doubt removed2 or invoke chapter 86 of the Florida Statutes in any way—and we cannot believe that was unintentional. To the contrary, State Farm's filing was styled, framed, and constructed, from beginning to end, as if there were a legally recognized, standalone cause of action to have a disinterested appraiser appointed in an insurance coverage dispute. But there isn't.
Nevertheless, despite our concerns with the filing that precipitated the circuit court's order, we will treat it as a "final order." For that is what the order appears to be. It is an order that concluded a civil case (such as it was) that had been filed with the circuit court. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1974) (). And because it is a final order, State Farm has a constitutional right to our review. See art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; In the Interest of J.B., 101 So. 3d 407, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
State Farm contends that Mr. Keys could not be a "disinterested appraiser" as that term is used in the policy. Because the facts that were put before the circuit court are not in dispute, the only issue we must decide is what this policy term means. That is an issue we review de novo. Am. S. Home Ins. Co. v. Lentini, 286 So. 3d 157, 158 n.2 (Fla. 2019) ; Ganzemuller v. Omega Ins. Co., 244 So. 3d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
The policy does not define "disinterested." We must, therefore, ascertain the plain meaning of the policy's term. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists, 212 So. 3d 973, 975-76 (Fla. 2017) ; Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Branco, 148 So. 3d 488, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ( ; see also Lenzi v. Regency Tower Ass'n, 250 So. 3d 103, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) . Here, the term "interested" is an adjective describing an appraiser who holds an interest—that is, a stake of some sort,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Creekside Crossing Condo. Ass'n v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co.
...should be granted whenever the parties have agreed to the provision, ” Wright Way Emergency Water Removal, LLC, 2016 WL 9526569, at *2 (citing Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Castilla, 18 So.3d 703, 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Romay, 744 So.2d at 469; Martinez, 643 So.2d at 1102). Additionally,......
-
Triton Renovation, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co.
...by way of a claim for equitable relief). 5. Nor may the parties' adjusters serve as appraisers. See State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Parrish, 312 So. 3d 145, 150-151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). 6. See also PB Property Holdings, LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., No. 16-cv-1748-WJM-STV, 2017 WL 7726696, *......
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Roof Pros Storm Div.
...Fla. Ins. v. Parrish, 312 So.3d 145, 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). A year ago, our sister court concluded that this "would seem to be problematic." Id. Our sister court was The filing of a proper initial pleading is "essential to initiate an action. . . . [I]ts purpose is to invoke the subject ma......
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Roof Pros Storm Div., Inc.
...(yet) one of them. Nor is there a recognized common law cause of action for this kind of discrete claim." State Farm Fla. Ins. v. Parrish, 312 So. 3d 145, 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). A year ago, our sister court concluded that this "would seem to be problematic." Id. Our sister court was right.......
-
The Continued Question Of Disinterested Appraisers For Florida Appraisals
...an insurance policy's appraisal provision requiring parties to select "disinterested" appraisers. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Parrish, 312 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 4th DCA 15th Judicial Circuit ❯ Palm Beach 17th Judicial Circuit ❯ Broward 19th Judicial Circuit ❯ Indian River ❯ Martin ❯ Okeec......
-
The Continued Question Of Disinterested Appraisers For Florida Appraisals
...an insurance policy's appraisal provision requiring parties to select "disinterested" appraisers. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Parrish, 312 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 4th DCA 15th Judicial Circuit ❯ Palm Beach 17th Judicial Circuit ❯ Broward 19th Judicial Circuit ❯ Indian River ❯ Martin ❯ Okeec......
-
Spotlight: Property Insurance Case To Watch
...- On December 21, 2021, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction arising from State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Parrish, 312 So. 3d 145, 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), holding "[w]e certify conflict with Brickell, to the extent it holds that a public adjuster who has a contingency interest in an ......
-
Spotlight: Property Insurance Case To Watch
...- On December 21, 2021, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction arising from State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Parrish, 312 So. 3d 145, 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), holding "[w]e certify conflict with Brickell, to the extent it holds that a public adjuster who has a contingency interest in an ......