Court Clarifies Definition of 'Disinterested' Appraiser in Insurance Dispute
The appellate court ruled a couple's public adjuster could not serve as their "disinterested" appraiser in a lawsuit against State Farm.
July 25, 2019 at 02:29 PM
4 minute read
A Florida appellate court has stated in no uncertain terms that a public adjuster previously retained by a policyholder cannot be considered a “disinterested appraiser” during subsequent appraisal proceedings.
The Third District Court of Appeal vacated a Miami-Dade Circuit Court order allowing homeowners Charles and Diana Sanders to use their claims agent, Gian Franco Debernardi with 911 Claims Corporation, in their appraisal proceedings against State Farm Florida Insurance Co. The appellate court found that Debernardi's preexisting relationship with the plaintiffs and financial stake in the appraisal's outcome violated the conditions of the Sanders' homeowner policy with State Farm.
“The appraisal condition in State Farm's Homeowner policy states that, 'Each party will select a qualified, disinterested appraiser,'” the court said. The opinion noted Debernardi's contract with the Sanders provided for him to earn a 10% contingency fee from whatever amount his clients received from State Farm.
“Mr. Debernardi cannot be disinterested, as he has a financial interest in whether or not the insureds recover from State Farm and how much they recover,” the court found.
Steven Gurian and Joe De Prado, litigators with Coconut Grove-based law firm Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez & Martinez, represented the Sanders in the Third DCA. Neither attorney responded to requests for comment by deadline.
The trouble between the Sanders and State Farm began in the wake of Hurricane Irma, which struck Florida in September 2017. The Sanders filed a breach of contract complaint against State Farm in August 2018. The couple alleged the insurance provider did not abide by their homeowners' insurance policy and failed to provide for property damage caused by Irma.
Read the appellate opinion:
The parties subsequently agreed to enter appraisal negotiations. However, State Farm took issue with the Sanders' naming of Debernardi as their appraiser as he had been previously hired by the couple and generated the $88,536.41 estimate at the source of the conflict between the Sanders and their insurance provider. State Farm cited the clause in the homeowner policy calling for a “disinterested appraiser” to be used by both parties and contended Debernardi's history with the Sanders, as well as the money he stood to gain from the appraisal, disqualified him from participating.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Martin Zilber issued an order April 9 allowing Debernardi to serve as the Sanders' appraiser during their talks with State Farm. The insurance company subsequently entered their appeal with the Third DCA.
The appellate court quashed the lower court's order, reasoning in part that any harm resulting from Debernardi's hiring in violation of the parties' original agreement could not be rectified on appeal, as “pursuant to the policy language the appraisal process is binding and cannot be undone.”
The court also ruled arrangements such as the one between Sanders and Debernardi do not qualify as “disinterested” under Florida law.
“We hold that a fiduciary, such as a public adjuster who is in a contractual agent-principal relationship with the insureds, cannot be a disinterested appraiser as a matter of law,” Wednesday's opinion said, reiterating that Debernardi would receive a portion of any money given to the Sanders by State Farm. “In the case before us, Mr. Debernardi has previously inspected the loss, and he was the person who prepared the written estimate of damages the insureds used to file their claim. It is hard to imagine that Mr. Debernardi is going to reach a different amount from the initial $88,56.41 estimate he already reached.”
A State Farm representative said the company was satisfied with the appellate court's order in a statement.
“We're pleased with the court's ruling on the plain language of the insurance contract,” the emailed remarks said. “We have nothing further to share beyond the information available in the court filings.”
State Farm's legal counsel, Kara Rockenbach and David Andrew Noel with West Palm Beach law firm Link & Rockenbach, did not return requests for comment.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Increased Costs Proved a Drag on Profits for PA's AmLaw 200 in 2024
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-81
- 3Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 4'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 5FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250