The Florida District Court of Appeal recently ruled on a significant case involving State Farm Florida Insurance Company and homeowners Charles and Diana Sanders. The court denied State Farm's petition to quash a trial court order that allowed the Sanders' public adjuster to act as their "disinterested" appraiser in a homeowners' insurance claim. This decision impacts how appraisers are selected in insurance disputes, particularly regarding their qualifications and potential conflicts of interest.
The case, State Farm Florida Insurance Company v. Charles Sanders and Diana Sanders, was filed under docket number 3D19-0927. It centers on the Sanders' claim for property damage following Hurricane Irma. The court's ruling is important for homeowners and insurance companies alike, as it clarifies the legal standards for appraisers in insurance claims.
Background
Charles and Diana Sanders had a homeowners' insurance policy with State Farm that covered property damages. Following Hurricane Irma, they filed a claim alleging that State Farm failed to provide coverage for their losses. In response, State Farm sought to invoke an appraisal clause in the policy, which required each party to select a "qualified, disinterested appraiser." The Sanders selected Gian Franco Debernardi from 911 Claims Corporation as their appraiser.
State Farm objected, arguing that Debernardi could not be considered "disinterested" due to his role as their public adjuster and his contractual relationship with the Sanders, which included a contingency fee based on the amount recovered. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Sanders, allowing Debernardi to serve as their appraiser. This prompted State Farm to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking to overturn the trial court's decision.
The Ruling
The court ultimately denied State Farm's petition, stating that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law. The judges emphasized that the trial court's order was consistent with existing precedent set by previous cases, specifically Rios v. Tri-State Insurance Company and Galvis v. Allstate Insurance Company. The court noted, "State Farm cannot demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law because the law in effect in our district at the time the trial court rendered its order... was Rios and Galvis."
The ruling clarified that a public adjuster, like Debernardi, could serve as an appraiser as long as their financial interest was disclosed. The court further stated, "A classic example of a departure from the essential requirements of the law is a trial court’s failure to follow binding precedent." The judges concluded that the trial court's adherence to established legal standards justified their decision to deny State Farm's petition.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for homeowners and insurance companies in Florida. It reinforces the idea that a public adjuster can act as a disinterested appraiser, provided that their financial interests are transparent. This decision may influence how insurance claims are handled, particularly in cases where appraisers have a financial stake in the outcome.
Moreover, the court's ruling highlights a potential conflict with decisions from other district courts in Florida, particularly the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The court certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court, asking whether a fiduciary, such as a public adjuster or appraiser in a contractual relationship with insureds, can be considered a disinterested appraiser as a matter of law. This question could lead to further clarification and consistency in how such cases are adjudicated across the state.
What's Next
The case may be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, especially given the certified question of great public importance. The outcome of this appeal could have lasting effects on the insurance industry and the rights of policyholders in Florida.