Can an Insurance Adjuster Be a 'Disinterested' Appraiser? Florida High Court Might Decide in State Farm Case
In the court opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal posed a direct question to the Florida Supreme Court to resolve "a matter of great importance."
April 16, 2020 at 03:12 PM
4 minute read
An appellate panel is asking the state's highest court to decide if policyholders have to hire two professionals—as opposed to one public adjuster who could also serve as disinterested appraiser—to pursue property-damage claims that their insurance companies have denied.
The Third District Court of Appeal denied State Farm Florida Insurance Co.'s request for a writ of certiorari to quash a Miami-Dade Circuit Court order that permitted homeowners Charles and Diana Sanders to use a public adjuster as their disinterested appraiser. The adjuster had helped the Sanders quantify their claim for reimbursement for property damage following Hurricane Irma.
The appellate court posed a direct question to the Florida Supreme Court as "a matter of great importance."
"Can a fiduciary, such as a public adjuster or appraiser who is in a contractual agent-principal relationship with the insureds and who receives a contingency fee from the appraisal award, be a disinterested appraiser as a matter of law?" the appellate panel asked the high court.
State Farm said little after the ruling.
"We appreciate the Third District Court of Appeal certifying a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court," the company said in a statement Thursday. "It would be inappropriate for us to comment further, as the case is in the appellate process."
Conflict of interest?
Anthony M. Lopez, a shareholder at Marin Eljaiek Lopez & Martinez who represented the Sanders and was successful in obtaining the ruling from the appellate court, says a fiduciary to an insured should be able to serve in that capacity.
"Right now, if you're in Miami-Dade County and you have a loss, technically, based on the Third [DCA's decision], you don't have to hire a new person to help you adjust it, if it goes to appraisal," Lopez said. "But if you're in Broward County, you do. So, they want uniformity in the state."
Lopez argues that nobody is a disinterested party because the appraisers that State Farm regularly hires have the same motives that State Farm is attributing to the Sanders' appraiser.
State Farm will employ the same appraiser repeatedly, Lopez said, which would motivate that person to make sure the company pays as little as possible on an insured's claim.
In the underlying action, Lopez has asked the judge to permit discovery to see "how many millions of dollars State Farm has paid this guy to act as their appraiser."
"The word 'disinterested' really needs to be put into context to what that means for both sides," Lopez said.
The appellate court, in its opinion, said State Farm had failed to show that the trial court's order did not follow "the essential requirements of the law," and would cause material injury to State Farm that could not be remedied on appeal. The Third DCA said it had to deny State Farm's petition, because the trial court relied upon two previous Third DCA decisions, which were binding precedent.
Before granting the Sanders' motion for rehearing, the appellate court had previously ruled in favor of State Farm. In its earlier decision, the Third DCA had found that a public adjuster who is in a contractual agent-principal relationship with the insured could not be a disinterested appraiser, and overturned the trial court's order
Before the hurricane, the Sanders had paid for a homeowners' insurance policy with State Farm to provide coverage for property damage, according to the opinion. They filed suit against State Farm for allegedly breaching that contract, when the insurer refused to pay for hurricane damage to their home.
State Farm and the Sanders disagreed about the amount of the loss.
The homeowners had a public adjuster help them quantify the damage, pinning it at around $90,000. When State Farm refused to pay their claim, pointing out the 10% contingency fee for the adjuster, the Sanders decided to start an appraisal process. State Farm refused to participate, saying the adjuster hired by the insured could not be the client's appraiser.
"Every time we have a hurricane, a lot of these cases get resolved through the appraisal process," Lopez said. "So if a policyholder has to hire not one, but two different people, that money comes out of their pocket. It ultimately diminishes the value of their claims."
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 AllBack-To-Back Hurricanes' Impact on Florida Legal Work Will Go Beyond Usual Suspects
5 minute readHolland & Knight Snags 2 Insurance Partners in New York and Philadelphia From Goodwin
3 minute readTurning the Tables: Defense Litigators Embrace Lawsuits, Alleging Fraud at Plaintiffs Shops
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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