Skip to main content

Insured Can Pursue Bad Faith After Favorable Appraisal Award

In Trafalgar at Greenacres, Ltd. v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 4D11-1376, 2012 WL 3822215, *1 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 5, 2012), the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, applying Florida law, overturned the trial court’s summary judgment order and held that an appraisal award pursuant to an insurance contract can constitute a “favorable resolution” of an underlying breach of contract dispute for purposes of filing a bad faith cause of action.

In this breach of contract case, a policyholder who suffered property damage from Hurricane Katrina alleged that the insurer failed to pay all proceeds due from the related claim.  In response, the insurer invoked the policy’s appraisal provision. An appraisal award was entered in the policyholder’s favor and the insurer paid it within the required time frame.

When the insurer moved for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, the trial court granted the motion, but also granted the policyholder’s motion to amend its complaint to raise a statutory bad faith claim.  This new claim alleged that the insurer “engaged in a pattern of delay and denial before and after litigation was filed.”  To counter, the insurer again filed for summary judgment, arguing that the policyholder could not bring a bad faith claim because it had not obtained a “favorable resolution” from the underlying breach of contract action. The trial court agreed and granted the insurer’s motion. The appellate court reversed.

Under Florida law, before a policyholder can bring a bad faith claim, the underlying claim must be “resolved favorably for the insured.”  The Trafalgar court noted that the requirement for a favorable resolution does not require a policyholder to obtain a court judgment in its favor – an arbitration award may also satisfy the condition. The Trafalgar court went on to hold that there was “no meaningful distinction” between an arbitration award and an appraisal award for the purposes of deciding whether an underlying action was “resolved favorably.” Thus, the court held that the policyholder’s appraisal award was a “favorable resolution,” and satisfied the necessary precondition for a bad faith claim. 

The Trafalgar decision is significant because it reaches a conclusion different from that reached by other Florida courts that have held that a policyholder cannot bring a bad faith claim if an appraisal award is paid by the insurer within the requisite time frame. See e.g., North Pointe Insurance Co. v. Tomas, 999 So.2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). In these situations, insurance carriers still may consider arguing that invoking a policy’s appraisal provision – and paying any award within the time prescribed – represents compliance with the policy and precludes a finding that the insurer has breached the policy, which should in turn preclude a finding that an underlying claim has been resolved in the policyholder’s favor.

If you are interested in receiving either the Trafalgar decision or the Tomas decision, please do not hesitate to contact me at mov@chaloslaw.com.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ReThink + ReUse Center "It's How We Roll" Fun Raiser -- Bowling Night -- October 16, 2014

As many of my readers may be aware, I am the Chair of the ReThink + ReUse Center, a non-for-profit educational and environmental Center in Miami educating children into rethinking reuseable materials for learning through play. The ReThink and ReUse Center’s Quality Play is Learning Program provides a series of educational and participatory workshops based on the philosophies of Reggio Emilia and Harvard's Project Zero Visible Thinking. The Children’s Trust is the major funder of this program, but the Center is required to continually fundraise for the balance its annual budget.   The Center is having a fun event you are invited to--the ReThink + Reuse Center’s “It’s How We Roll” bowling event on October 16, 2014 at Splitsville Luxury Lanes from 18:00 to 21:30 hours. My firm, Comcast and Waste Management are major sponsors for this event, but we could use a few more sponsors. If you are interested in sponsoring the event, please let me know by reaching me at mov@chalos

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the U.S. Distric