Cassel & Cassel, P.A. - Property Damage Attorneys
  • Home
  • Our Attorneys
    • Hillary B. Cassel
    • Michael A. Cassel
    • Alex J. Zatik
    • Christy Brigman
  • Practice Areas
  • Firm News & Blog
  • FAQs
  • Glossary of Terms
  • Contact Us

Analysis of New Case Law re: the Scope of Appraisal when Coverage is Partially Denied

7/27/2018

4 Comments

 
Analysis and Interpretation by Michael A. Cassel

On July 25, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeals released their decision in Andrea Tracey and James Tracey v. People's Trust Insurance Company, (hereinafter "Tracey").  The Tracey opinion discusses the ability for an appraisal panel to determine causation for a denied portion of a claim when the claim has not been denied in its entirety.
Background and Facts
 
In 2017, the insureds sustained a loss to their property as a result of a tornado.  People's Trust afforded coverages for the interior damage but denied coverage for the roof stating that said damage was the result of "age-related wear and tear and deterioration; general mechanical breakdown or latent defect; and/or faulty, inadequate or defective maintenance of the roofing system…"[1]  The insureds submitted two (2) estimates, both including roof repairs, and a sworn proof of loss evidencing a disagreement with the carrier's position.  People's Trust then demanded appraisal and sought to have the appraisal panel determine whether the roof damage was caused by the covered tornado or an uncovered cause of loss such as wear and tear.
 
The insureds filed an action for breach of contract with regards to the denied portion of the claim.  People's Trust moved to compel appraisal arguing that causation was an issue ripe for determination through appraisal.  The insureds countered arguing that, as the roof was denied, there was an issue of coverage to be determined by the trial court.  Ultimately, the court denied the motion to compel appraisal ruling that, because People's Trust made a predetermination that the roof was not covered, appraisal was not an appropriate measure at that time.
 
4th DCA Opinion
 
The 4th DCA found that "'causation is a coverage question for the court when an insurer wholly denies that there is a covered loss and an amount-of-loss question for the appraisal panel when an insurer admits that there is covered loss, the amount of which is disputed.'[2] . . . In other words, when an insurer admits coverage and disputes the amount of loss, causation is to be determined by an appraisal panel."[3]  In reaching this conclusion, the court relied upon Kendall Lakes Townhomes Developers v. Agric. Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co., a Third District Court of Appeal case, where it was determined that a dispute constituted a question as to the amount of a loss despite a partial denial of coverage.[4] Essentially, the 4th DCA found that, if any coverage is afforded, it is proper for an appraisal panel to make determinations with regards to all issues of causation.
 
Additionally, the 4th DCA held that the insureds' waiver argument, ostensibly due to People's Trust's partial denial of the claim, was without merit as People's Trust did not act inconsistently with their right to appraisal.[5] 
 
Analysis, Impact, and Effect
 
First, it is essential to understand the conflicting schools of thought in Florida with regards to the ability to proceed with appraisal when there are outstanding coverage issues.  In the counties governed by the 3d DCA[6] and, subsequently, the 2d DCA,[7] the courts adhere to the "dual-tack" approach to appraisal, to wit, the appraisal may go forward on a "dual track" basis while the insurer preserves their right to contest coverage as a matter of law even after the appraisal has been completed;[8] however, in the counties governed by the 4th DCA[9] the courts have specifically rejected the "dual-track" approach and held that the trial court must resolve coverage issues before sending the parties to appraisal to determine damages.[10]  Based on these conflicting viewpoints, it has been established that appraisal could always move forward in the 2d and 3d DCAs regardless of any coverage issues and appraisal would need to be stayed in the 4th DCA until such a time as coverage was determined in its entirety. 

These maxims regarding appraisal in Florida have long been governed by Johnson v. Nationwide, the same case relied upon, in part, by the Tracey court.[11]  To reiterate the language Tracey cited from Johnson, "causation is a coverage question for the court when an insurer wholly denies that there is a covered loss and an amount-of-loss question for the appraisal panel when an insurer admits that there is covered loss, the amount of which is disputed."[12]  This language left the issue of a partial denial of coverage seemingly ambiguous as it only dealt with the extremes.  The responsibility for determining causation in a partially denied claim was not addressed.  Since then, there have been some 4th DCA cases which held that "all" issues of coverage must be resolved before appraisal is ripe;[13] however, in Tracey, the 4th DCA relied upon a 3d DCA opinion to all but resolve this potential ambiguity in finding that there can be outstanding coverage issues as long as the claim was not denied in its entirety.  Considering the obvious discrepancy between the 3d DCA and the 4th DCA regarding the manners in which appraisal is handled, it seems incongruous that the Tracey court would rely upon any persuasive opinions issued by the 3d DCA when there are binding opinions which contradict same.      

There is also a public policy argument to consider which seems lost upon the Tracey court, and most Florida courts for that matter.  The denial of coverage, partial or otherwise, may lead to presuppositions in an umpire who may be otherwise unqualified to render an opinion regarding causation.  The only people truly qualified to make determinations pertaining to causation are licensed professional engineers and, depending on their experience, licensed general contractors; however, it is quite rare to have an umpire equipped with either license.  As such, the court has placed the onus of making a technical determination regarding building and engineering principles upon a person who may lack the qualifications to make such assessments.    

The Tracey court also dealt with an argument regarding the insurer's waiver of appraisal rights.  Waiver is the "voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right or conduct which implies the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right."[14]  As discussed above, waiver with regards to appraisal hinges on whether an insurer acted inconsistently with their right to proceed to appraisal.[15]  While the 4th DCA found that the partial denial of the roof in Tracey was not inconsistent with appraisal, there are situations where a waiver argument may be stronger.  For example, there are many circumstances where insurance carriers are simply nonresponsive to supplemental claims and attempt to invoke appraisal after a lawsuit has been properly filed.  Typically speaking, when an insurer is aware of a demand for payment and chooses not to respond until after suit was filed, the insurer's actions are tantamount to a denial of coverage;[16] however, when coverage is denied under an insurance policy, the insured no longer must comply with conditions contained within the policy of insurance.[17]  That said, there is case law holding that an insurer may invoke appraisal for the first time after a lawsuit has been filed as long as they, again, do not litigate inconsistently with their right to appraisal.[18]  The application of these principles remains unclear in a situation where a complete constructive denial of coverage has occurred.  There is an argument that this may be enough to constitute a waiver of an insurer's right to appraisal.  I am sure that this issue will come up soon considering the plethora of supplemental claims stemming from Hurricane Irma to which carriers have been unresponsive. 

It is important to remember that appraisal does not stay a claim for bad faith.  Simply because a carrier has not waived its right to appraisal does not mean that the carrier as acted in accordance with the terms of the policy or governing statutes outlining bad faith conduct.  It is well settled that there are three (3) elements which must be met in order to ripen a bad faith cause of action:  (1) the insurer raises no defense which would defeat coverage, or any such defense has been adjudicated adversely to the insurer; (2) the actual extent of the insured's loss must have been determined; and (3) the insured must be indemnified for its damages after the expiration of a properly served Civil Remedy Notice (hereinafter "CRN").[19]   To that end, there is no requirement that the CRN be filed at any specific time so it is more than sufficient to file same upon the invocation of appraisal.  Furthermore, Florida courts have consistently held that the payment of an appraisal award after the expiration of a CRN is sufficient to satisfy the conditions precedent to a claim for statutory bad faith.[20]  This will pressure the insurer to complete the appraisal process and tender payment within 60 days or potentially expose the insurer to a bad faith cause of action.  Of course, the strength of the CRN and subsequent bad faith claim will hinge upon the facts of the claim and the actual bad faith conduct which may have occurred.  This course of action may serve to even the playing field as denials of coverage which are ultimately determined to be incorrect through the appraisal process will strengthen any argument for bad faith damages.
​
Should you have any questions about how this analysis may relate to your own claim, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free consultation.

[1] Andrea Tracey and James Tracey v. People's Trust Insurance Company, No. 4D17-3945, 2018 WL 3559914, at 1 (4th DCA 2018)
[2] Tracey at 2 quoting Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So. 2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 2002).
[3] Tracey at 2 citing Kendall Lakes Townhomes Developers, Inc. v. Agric. Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 916 So. 2d 12, 15-16 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
[4] Id.
[5] Tracey at 2 citing Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Branco, 148 So. 3d 488, 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ("[T]he question of waiver of appraisal is not solely about the length of time the case is pending or the number of filings the appraisal-seeking party made. Instead, the primary focus is whether the[y] acted inconsistently with their appraisal rights.").
[6] The 3d DCA governs Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties.
[7] The 2d DCA governs Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, and Sarasota Counties.
[8] Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). 
[9] The 4th DCA governs Broward, Indian River, Okeechobee, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, and Martin Counties.
[10] Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Michigan Condo. Ass'n, 46 So. 3d 177, 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (certifying conflict with this Court's decision in Rawlins); Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So. 3d 129, 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
[11] Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2002).
[12] Id. at 1022
[13] See supra note 10.
[14] Truly Nolen of Am., Inc. v. King Cole Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 143 So. 3d 1015, 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
[15] See supra note 5.
[16] See Clifton v. United Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 31 So. 3d 826, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Sanchez v. Am. Ambassador Cas. Co., 559 So. 2d 344, 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
[17] See Castro v. Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 228 So. 3d 596 (3d DCA 2017) Fabel v. Masterson, 951 So. 2d 934, 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Tower Hill Select Ins. Co. v. McKee; Indian River State Bank v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 46 Fla. 283, 35 So. 228, 246 (Fla. 1903); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Phelps, 294 So. 2d 362, 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
[18] See, e.g., Gonzalez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 805 So.2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) and Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Castilla, 18 So. 3d 703, 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
[19] See Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1270, 1275-76 (Fla. 2000); Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1995); Landers v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 234 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
[20] Cammarata v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Demase v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 239 So. 3d 218, 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
4 Comments
Edward Ebmeier link
7/27/2018 09:09:58 am

Thank you for sending. Helps my understanding of approaches to issues. I love reading cases studies. I gain insight into how to address customer needs. Spent a few hours at UM Law Library last week-end looking up Wa. State law re leases.

Reply
Valorie Chavin link
7/27/2018 10:40:20 am

I agree with the analysis above. I am disappointed that the Tracey Court did not reference the specific policy language at issue in the People's Trust Policy. The language in the standard People's Trust Policy makes it clear that the carrier reserves the right to appraise issues of causation, despite a partial denial. Most homeowner policies do not contain this specific reservation of the right to appraise issues of causation. As such, I do not believe the analysis and opinion of the Tracey Court should apply to disputes involving other carriers that are governed by different policy language. However, based upon the way the opinion was drafted, it appears that the Tracey Court intended on creating a bright line rule, irrespective of the governing policy language.

Reply
Michael Cassel
7/27/2018 11:12:00 pm

Well said. Thanks for your insight Valorie!

Reply
Arthur Camayd
7/27/2018 04:14:51 pm

Good post. A well delineated appraisal award may be one option in the event that the courts kick it to appraisal. I guess that is the least an umpire can do if they try to avoid causation and extension of coverage via appraisal

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Attorney Blog

    Archives

    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018

    Categories

    All
    Case Law Analyses
    Firm News

    RSS Feed

    If you would like to be added to our mailing list, please enter your email address below:

Submit

Picture
All Rights Reserved · © 2019 CASSEL & CASSEL, P.A. · Attorney Advertising
DISCLAIMER: The information contained on this website is intended as general information only and does not constitute, nor should it be taken as, legal advice.  No information contained on this website should be relied upon without consulting with an attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which your matter arises.  Laws and legal requirements change frequently and are subject to revision and interpretation.  We make no representation, warranty, or claim that the information contained on this website is up to date.  We are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the resources or information available at or from this website.  The accounts of recent trials, verdicts, settlements, or results contained in this website are intended to illustrate the experience of the law firm.  Prospective clients may not obtain the same or similar results as each case is unique and results will differ based on the particular facts and law applicable in each case.  Nothing contained on this website constitutes a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of a specific legal matter.  The services discussed on this website may not be available in all jurisdictions. The attorney responsible for this website is Michael Cassel, Esq. 
  • Home
  • Our Attorneys
    • Hillary B. Cassel
    • Michael A. Cassel
    • Alex J. Zatik
    • Christy Brigman
  • Practice Areas
  • Firm News & Blog
  • FAQs
  • Glossary of Terms
  • Contact Us