Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Alice Ward Valdivieso et al. v. Citizens Property Insurance Company
Date: 03-08-2024
Case Number: 18-23350
Judge: Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts
Court: Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Insurance Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Jessica C. Conner
Description:
In September 2017, Insureds, whose home was insured by Citizens, made a claim after their home was damaged by Hurricane Irma. After Citizens adjusted the loss and issued a partial loss payment, Insureds provided Citizens with their own repair estimate and requested that Citizens reevaluate their claim. Citizens did so and issued a second loss payment. Insureds' attorney, on Insureds' behalf, then sent Citizens a May 16, 2018 letter demanding the matter go to appraisal pursuant to the policy's appraisal clause.[2] In response to Insureds' letter, Citizens requested that Insureds provide a sworn proof of loss before going to appraisal, and, consistent with the appraisal clause, Citizens chose its appraiser. Citizens also sent a June
4
21, 2018 letter to Insureds acknowledging Insureds' appraisal demand and naming Citizens's appraiser. Apparently, Insureds did not receive this letter.
On July 10, 2018, Insureds filed the instant action in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, alleging that Citizens had failed to comply with the policy's appraisal clause. Insureds' complaint sought both specific performance (i.e., to compel Citizens to go to appraisal) and attorney's fees under section 627.428. On October 1, 2018, Citizens filed an answer denying Insureds' allegations and, as it second affirmative defense, alleged that Citizens had both acknowledged Insureds' appraisal demand and was actively participating in the appraisal process when Insureds filed their lawsuit. That same day, Citizens filed a motion below to compel appraisal.
On October 24, 2018, the trial court entered an agreed order staying the litigation and compelling appraisal. On December 17, 2018, an appraisal award was entered that resulted in Citizens issuing an additional loss payment to Insureds. The parties then took separate actions to resolve this litigation. Insureds filed a motion for section 627.428 attorney's fees ("Fees Motion"), claiming that the trial court should view Citizens's payment of the appraisal award as the functional equivalent of a confession of judgment because filing suit was purportedly Insureds' only recourse to compel an appraisal. Whereas Citizens moved for summary judgment, alleging that (i) attorney's fees were not awardable because there was no breakdown in the claims process that served as the catalyst for Insureds' filing their lawsuit,[4]and (ii) Citizens had timely complied with the policy's appraisal clause and made a loss payment per the policy's terms.
Without objection, the trial court conducted a hearing on the parties' competing motions that was both evidentiary (as to Insureds' Fees Motion) and non-evidentiary (as to Citizens's summary judgment motion) in nature. At this hearing, as it related to the Fees Motion, the trial court heard testimony from Citizens's corporate representative who testified that Citizens had chosen its appraiser on May 24, 2018, eight days after Citizens received Insureds' written appraisal demand. Citizens's corporate representative also testified that Citizens had mailed the June 21, 2018 appraisal acknowledgment letter to Insureds. Insureds' former attorney, who also testified at the hearing, acknowledged that she and Citizens's adjuster had discussions as late as June 20, 2018, pertaining to Citizens's request that Insureds provide a sworn proof of loss before proceeding to appraisal.[5]Documents introduced into evidence at the hearing confirmed the attorney's testimony.
After hearing evidence with respect to Insureds' Fees Motion, the trial court then heard only legal argument on Citizens's summary judgment motion. The trial court adjourned the hearing without issuing a ruling.
On November 20, 2021, the trial court entered the challenged order that: (1) denied Insureds' Fees Motion, finding that Insureds' filing of the complaint was neither necessitated by Citizens's actions nor consistent with the purpose of section 627.428; and (2) entered final summary judgment in favor of Citizens based on the testimonial and documentary evidence that had been introduced below with respect to the Fees Motion. Insureds timely appealed the challenged order.
Miami, Florida insurance law lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a bad faith breach of insurance contract theory.
In September 2017, Insureds, whose home was insured by Citizens, made a claim after their home was damaged by Hurricane Irma. After Citizens adjusted the loss and issued a partial loss payment, Insureds provided Citizens with their own repair estimate and requested that Citizens reevaluate their claim. Citizens did so and issued a second loss payment. Insureds' attorney, on Insureds' behalf, then sent Citizens a May 16, 2018 letter demanding the matter go to appraisal pursuant to the policy's appraisal clause.[2] In response to Insureds' letter, Citizens requested that Insureds provide a sworn proof of loss before going to appraisal, and, consistent with the appraisal clause, Citizens chose its appraiser. Citizens also sent a June
4
21, 2018 letter to Insureds acknowledging Insureds' appraisal demand and naming Citizens's appraiser. Apparently, Insureds did not receive this letter.
On July 10, 2018, Insureds filed the instant action in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, alleging that Citizens had failed to comply with the policy's appraisal clause. Insureds' complaint sought both specific performance (i.e., to compel Citizens to go to appraisal) and attorney's fees under section 627.428. On October 1, 2018, Citizens filed an answer denying Insureds' allegations and, as it second affirmative defense, alleged that Citizens had both acknowledged Insureds' appraisal demand and was actively participating in the appraisal process when Insureds filed their lawsuit. That same day, Citizens filed a motion below to compel appraisal.
On October 24, 2018, the trial court entered an agreed order staying the litigation and compelling appraisal. On December 17, 2018, an appraisal award was entered that resulted in Citizens issuing an additional loss payment to Insureds. The parties then took separate actions to resolve this litigation. Insureds filed a motion for section 627.428 attorney's fees ("Fees Motion"), claiming that the trial court should view Citizens's payment of the appraisal award as the functional equivalent of a confession of judgment because filing suit was purportedly Insureds' only recourse to compel an appraisal. Whereas Citizens moved for summary judgment, alleging that (i) attorney's fees were not awardable because there was no breakdown in the claims process that served as the catalyst for Insureds' filing their lawsuit,[4]and (ii) Citizens had timely complied with the policy's appraisal clause and made a loss payment per the policy's terms.
Without objection, the trial court conducted a hearing on the parties' competing motions that was both evidentiary (as to Insureds' Fees Motion) and non-evidentiary (as to Citizens's summary judgment motion) in nature. At this hearing, as it related to the Fees Motion, the trial court heard testimony from Citizens's corporate representative who testified that Citizens had chosen its appraiser on May 24, 2018, eight days after Citizens received Insureds' written appraisal demand. Citizens's corporate representative also testified that Citizens had mailed the June 21, 2018 appraisal acknowledgment letter to Insureds. Insureds' former attorney, who also testified at the hearing, acknowledged that she and Citizens's adjuster had discussions as late as June 20, 2018, pertaining to Citizens's request that Insureds provide a sworn proof of loss before proceeding to appraisal.[5]Documents introduced into evidence at the hearing confirmed the attorney's testimony.
After hearing evidence with respect to Insureds' Fees Motion, the trial court then heard only legal argument on Citizens's summary judgment motion. The trial court adjourned the hearing without issuing a ruling.
On November 20, 2021, the trial court entered the challenged order that: (1) denied Insureds' Fees Motion, finding that Insureds' filing of the complaint was neither necessitated by Citizens's actions nor consistent with the purpose of section 627.428; and (2) entered final summary judgment in favor of Citizens based on the testimonial and documentary evidence that had been introduced below with respect to the Fees Motion. Insureds timely appealed the challenged order.
Outcome:
Judgment in favor of the Defendant.
Affirmed on appeal.
Affirmed on appeal.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Alice Ward Valdivieso et al. v. Citizens Property Insuran...?
The outcome was: Judgment in favor of the Defendant. Affirmed on appeal.
Which court heard Alice Ward Valdivieso et al. v. Citizens Property Insuran...?
This case was heard in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, FL. The presiding judge was Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts.
Who were the attorneys in Alice Ward Valdivieso et al. v. Citizens Property Insuran...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Insurance Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Jessica C. Conner.
When was Alice Ward Valdivieso et al. v. Citizens Property Insuran... decided?
This case was decided on March 8, 2024.