Issuing Judgment After Confirmation of Appraisal Award Overturned
The Florida Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court’s judgment in favor of the insured because after confirming the appraisal award, judgment was issued before the insurer could offer policy defenses. State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Hochreiter, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 743 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2023.
After a dispute arose over the scope and amount of damage suffered by the insureds’ roof, they sued State Farm. State Farm responded to the complaint by demanding an appraisal, a stay of litigation, and an extension of tiem to respond to the complaint.
The trial court greanted the demand and retained jurisdiction regarding post-appraisal matters once the appraisal was complete. The court further ordered State Farm to respond to the complaint within twenty days of the conclusion of the apraisal “if any issues remain.” The order did not specify whether the issues that remained had to relate to the initial appraisal stage of the litigation or the subsequent stage during which the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed isseus related to coverage.
An apraisal award for roof repairs was prepared, stating that “any payments are subject to all policy provisions and limitations that may apply.”
The insurds moved to confirm the appraisal award, arguing that State Farm failed to answer the complaint and raise defenses within twenty days of the appraisal award. State Farm argued that the insureds had failed to provide substantiation of the relevant Florida Building Codes which required the roof to repaired, as stated in the policy. State Farm argued no payment was due because these policy provisions had not yet been met. The trial court granted the motion to confirm without an evidentiary hearing. The order explained that State Farm “failed to timrely assert any affirmative defenses” pursuant to the order that granted an appraisal.
State Farm appealed, arguing the trial court failed to provide adequate due process by awarding a judgment without consideration or adjudication of the insurer’s defenses.
The appellate court agreed. The trial court’s order failed to clearly indicate that State Farm was required to present all of its defenses on the sbustantive merits of the complaint, versus just aspects of the appraisal award, which by itself did not determine the merits of the contractual defenses.
Therefore, the final judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings to consider and adjudicate State Farm’s defenses.
