Cypress Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Empire Mitigation Restoration and Consulting, LLC A/A/O Steve Wexler and Paula Wexler
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 28, 2020
Docket1D19-4009
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D19-4009
_____________________________
CYPRESS PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant,
v.
EMPIRE MITIGATION
RESTORATION AND CONSULTING,
LLC a/a/o Steve Wexler and
Paula Wexler,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County.
Steven B. Whittington, Judge.
October 28, 2020
PER CURIAM.
At issue is whether the trial court erred in compelling an
appraisal of a residential home under a policy of insurance issued
by Cypress Property & Casualty Insurance Company. Cypress
initially accepted coverage and paid benefits of $8,366.41 for
damage to the home. It later withheld additional benefits the
homeowners claimed based on an estimate of $98,000 for repairs
provided by Empire Mitigation Restoration and Consulting, LLC,
which initiated a lawsuit on the homeowners’ behalf to recover
damages for breach of the insurance contract. A central focus of
the lawsuit was whether the alleged losses to the home are covered
under the insurance policy; some are and have been paid, others
are vigorously contested by Cypress as unrelated to storm damage.
On appeal, Cypress argues it is error to compel an appraisal
because coverage issues are not entirely resolved. It points out that
the language in the insurance policy excludes an appraisal process
where “coverage determination issues” exist, which is the case
here. The language of the insurance contract requires an appraisal
when a disagreement exists only as to the amount of a covered loss;
it specifically precludes appraisal for coverage issues (“Coverage
determination issues are not subject to appraisal.”). The order
requiring an appraisal was unwarranted under the terms of the
insurance contract. See generally Doe v. Natt, 299 So. 2d 599, 605
(Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“Arbitration provisions are creatures of
contract and must be construed as ‘a matter of contract
interpretation.’”) (quoting Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d
633, 636 (Fla. 1999)); see e.g., U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Franko, 443 So.
2d 170, 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (explaining that the contract
between the parties determined when the arbitration clause was
triggered). Moreover, a review of the record establishes that
Empire Mitigation filed suit and litigated the matter for a year
before first requesting an appraisal, thereby constituting a waiver
of whatever right of appraisal that may have existed. Raymond
James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So. 2d 707, 711 (Fla. 2005)
(“We have long held that a party’s contract rights may be waived
by actually participating in a lawsuit or taking action inconsistent
with that right.”) (citing Klosters Rederi A/S v. Arison Shipping
Co., 280 So. 2d 678, 680 (Fla. 1973)). Because the order compelling
an appraisal was inconsistent with the insurance policy, and
because the assertion of the right to an appraisal was waived
under the circumstances, the order was in error.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LEWIS, ROBERTS, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
2
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Steven G. Schwartz and Karrie D. Cook of Schwartz Law Group,
Boca Raton, for Appellant.
Mark A. Nation, Longwood, and Sheldon Carter Worrell of The
Bush Law Group, LLC, Jacksonville, for Appellee.
3