American Coastal Insurance Co. v. South Bay Plantation Condominium Assoc., Inc.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledFebruary 11, 2022
Docket2D21-0794
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
AMERICAN COASTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant,
v.
SOUTH BAY PLANTATION
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Appellee.
No. 2D21-794
February 11, 2022
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for
Collier County; Lauren Brodie, Judge.
Patrick E. Betar, William S. Berk, and Illon R. Kantro of Berk,
Merchant & Sims, PLC, Coral Gables, for Appellant.
Cary J. Goggin and Amanda C. Broadwell of Goede, Adamczyk,
DeBoest & Cross, PLLC, Naples, for Appellee.
KELLY, Judge.
American Coastal Insurance Company appeals from a nonfinal
order granting, in part, South Bay Plantation Condominium
Association, Inc.'s motion to stay and compel appraisal. Because
the trial court did not first determine that South Bay's demand for
appraisal was ripe, we reverse.
South Bay filed a claim with its insurer, American Coastal, for
damage to its property caused by Hurricane Irma. South Bay and
American Coastal were unable to agree on the amount of the loss.
Eventually, American Coastal denied the entire claim citing South
Bay's failure to satisfy its postloss obligations and its
misrepresentation of facts regarding the loss.
South Bay then requested an appraisal pursuant to the terms
of the policy. When American Coastal did not comply, South Bay
sued it for breach of contract. In its amended answer, affirmative
defenses, and counterclaim, American Coastal asserted that
coverage was barred based on South Bay's "gross inflation of its
claim" and its failure to satisfy the postloss conditions under the
policy. South Bay then moved to stay the proceedings and compel
appraisal. The trial court granted the motion to compel appraisal.
American Coastal argues this was error because the demand for
appraisal was not ripe.
"A demand [for appraisal] is ripe where postloss conditions are
2
met, 'the insurer has a reasonable opportunity to investigate and
adjust the claim,' and there is a disagreement regarding the value of
the property or the amount of loss." Am. Cap. Assur. Corp. v.
Leeward Bay at Tarpon Bay Condo. Ass'n, 306 So. 3d 1238, 1240
(Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Galeria Villas
Condo. Ass'n, 48 So. 3d 188, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)), review
granted, No. SC20-1766, 2021 WL 416684 (Fla. Feb. 8, 2021).
"[T]he party seeking appraisal must comply with all post-loss
obligations before the right to appraisal can be invoked under the
contract." State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 172 So. 3d 473,
476-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); see also Leeward Bay, 306 So. 3d at
1241 (concluding that appraisal was ripe where the insurer
disputed the amount of the loss but did not allege that the insured
failed to satisfy any postloss conditions).
Here, the record reflects that the trial court relied upon this
court's decision in Leeward Bay in ordering that the parties proceed
with appraisal and conduct discovery simultaneously. However,
Leeward Bay, which allows for such a dual-track approach, is
distinguishable because it did not involve the insured's alleged
failure to comply with any postloss conditions. See 306 So. 3d at
3
1241. Because the trial court did not make a preliminary decision
on whether South Bay complied with its postloss obligations, South
Bay's demand for appraisal was not ripe. We therefore reverse the
order compelling appraisal and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Admiralty House, Inc., 66 So. 3d 342,
344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reversing an order compelling appraisal
and remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the
insured's demand for appraisal was ripe). "[O]nce the trial court
determines that [the] demand for appraisal is ripe, the court has the
discretion to control the order in which [the] appraisal and coverage
determinations proceed." Id. (quoting Galeria Villas Condo. Ass'n,
48 So. 3d at 191-92); see also Leeward Bay, 306 So. 3d at 1242-43.
American Coastal also argues that the court erred in
compelling appraisal because South Bay's claim was denied based
on its intentional misrepresentation of the amount of the loss which
voided coverage under the policy. It asserts that where a claim is
wholly denied based on lack of coverage, the trial court must
resolve the coverage issue before ordering appraisal. American
Coastal acknowledges that if South Bay's compliance with the
policy's postloss conditions was not in question, this argument
4
would be unavailing in light of this court's decision in Leeward
Bay.1
Reversed and remanded with directions.
MORRIS, C.J., and SMITH, J., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
1 The Florida Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction to
review this court's decision in Leeward Bay based on direct conflict
with the decisions of other district courts of appeal. See Am. Cap.
Assur. Corp. v. Leeward Bay at Tarpon Bay Condo. Ass'n, No. SC20-
1766, 2021 WL 416684 (Fla. Feb. 8, 2021).
5