Middle District of Florida Grants Insured’s Motion to Compel Appraisal
By Zachary D. Sonenblum
In Great Lakes Ins. Se. v. Torchiati, LLC, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the Insured’s motion to compel appraisal for two different insured buildings, including a building for which coverage was denied.
The Insured owned two buildings occupied by restaurants—Junkanoo and Fresh Catch Bistro, and Great Lakes insured both buildings under a single policy. Each building is “separately identified and listed in the policy, with each having its own limits of insurance.” Great Lakes afforded coverage for damages to Fresh Catch but denied coverage for the Junkanoo building, and the Insured ultimately moved to compel appraisal in litigation. Great Lakes agreed that appraisal was appropriate for Fresh Catch; however Great Lakes opposed appraisal for Junkanoo—taking the position that Junkanoo was not ripe for appraisal because it denied coverage for that building leaving a dispute as to coverage as a whole (rather than the amount of loss) for Junkanoo.
Relying on Merrick Pres. Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Cypress Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 315 So. 3d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Court found that Great Lakes “did not wholly deny coverage for each building, bringing this case in line with the facts of Merrick” and ordered appraisal for both buildings for Toriachi’s claim. In Merrick, the insured filed a claim for storm damage to more than 20 different buildings covered under the policy and the insurer recognized coverage for 17 of those buildings. The Merrick court ultimately concluded that “appraisal [wa]s appropriate to determine the amount of loss to each building because the insurer had not wholly denied the claim, having recognized coverage for seventeen of the buildings.”
The Torchiati court further noted that “Merrick acknowledged that several buildings had been denied coverage, and each was ‘covered by what is effectively a separate policy,’ yet appraisal was ordered for the entire property.” Lastly, the court also reasoned that “requiring appraisal as to [both] buildings covered by the Policy will likely assist the Court when it later determines coverage.”
Zachary D. Sonenblum