Third District Court of Appeal Reverses Trial Court Decision to Deny Appraisal in Reopened Hurricane Irma Damages Claim

by Paris T. Baker

In Patios W. One Condo Ass’n v. Am. Coastal Ins. Co., the insured filed a claim for damages caused by Hurricane Irma. The insurer opened coverage for the claim, but the damages were less than the policy deductible. Thereafter, the insured sent a letter on the September 10, 2020 deadline, giving notice to the insurer that it wanted to re-open the claim. The letter did not contain any damage estimate or similar documentation. The insurer responded to the letter stating it was untimely under Florida Statute §627.70132, but nonetheless the insured would investigate the reason for the late notice. The insured also requested information supporting why the claim was reported late. No additional information was requested. Upon investigation, the insurer denied the request to re-open the claim. The insured responded by filing suit. During suit, the insured filed a motion to compel appraisal for the claim. The trial court determined that as to timeliness of the notice of the re-opened claim, the insurer incorrectly interpreted the three-year statutory deadline. However, as to the notice provided by the insured, the trial court found it was legally insufficient under Fla. Statute §627.70131 because it did not include “some type of estimate” of damages, thereby denying the insured’s motion to compel appraisal.

On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed the trial court’s order finding that the plain and unambiguous language of section 627.70132 does not require that an insured provide an estimate of damages in order to comply with the statutory requirement for providing an insurer with notice of a supplemental or reopened claim.

The Court acknowledged this opinion differs from the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s holding in Goldberg v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 302 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Specifically, the Court distinguished the issue between the two cases. In Goldberg, the primary issue was whether the insured was required to submit a supplemental claim before filing suit for additional payment for the loss to the dwelling. Whereas here, the issue before the Court was whether the trial court properly construed section 627.70132 to find that the letter submitted by the insured was a legally insufficient notice of a supplemental/reopened claim. The Court also noted Goldberg appears to overlook the fact that section 627.70132 focuses on the notice of supplemental claim, and not the supplemental claim itself.

In disagreeing with the trial court, the Third District Court of Appeal held the contents of the letter, taken together, and read in light of the plain language of section 627.70132 provided the requisite notice to the insurer of the insured’s supplemental or reopened claim pursuant to the statute. The Court reasoned the relevant language in the subject policy mirrors the statutory language and thus notice was made in accordance with the terms of the policy. Further, the Court also noted once the insurer received the letter, it failed to request a sworn proof of loss, damages estimate, or similar documentation. Instead, the letter only addressed the timing of the notice of the claim. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel appraisal.