The Sorgenfreis sued, alleging breach of the insurance policy.

In its answer, the insurer again admitted coverage, but noted that the loss did not meet the required deductible. Additionally, the insurer asserted the affirmative defense of pre-existing damage.

The insurer also filed a motion to compel appraisal, asserting its entitlement to an appraisal on the ground that the dispute involved the proper amount of loss under the policy.

After a hearing, the trial court denied the insurer's motion to compel appraisal.

The insurer appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred in denying its motion to compel appraisal because it had not wholly denied coverage of the Sorgenfreis' claim.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court reversed.

In its decision, the appellate court explained that, in Johnson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 828 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2002), the Supreme Court of Florida held that when an insurer did not wholly deny coverage, a disagreement between the parties as to causation presented an amount-of-loss issue to be determined, under the insurance contract, by appraisal.

In this case, the appellate court continued, the Sorgenfreis filed a single claim under their insurance policy and their insurer agreed that a portion of the claim was covered – while also asserting that the amount of loss did not exceed the deductible and that the balance of the claimed loss constituted pre-existing damage.

As such, the appellate court ruled, the insurer had not wholly denied coverage and, therefore, the trial court had erred in refusing to compel appraisal.

The case is Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Sorgenfrei, No. 5D18-3002 (Fla. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Micheala D. Scheihing, of Southeast Law Group, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Matthew G. Struble and Christine D. Skubala, of Struble, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellees.