stating the phrase “right to deny the claim” in an appraisal clause identical to the one before us is the functional equivalent of the Hanover clause that the [appraisers] “shall not decide the [carrier’s] liability”
How later courts described this case
- stating the phrase “right to deny the claim” in an appraisal clause identical to the one before us is the functional equivalent of the Hanover clause that the [appraisers] “shall not decide the [carrier’s] liability”
- concluding dual-track approach avoids “adverse effects on the expeditious, out of court disposition of litigation” and saves “judicial resources which might otherwise be required in resolving the factual and legal issues involved in [coverage disputes]”
- holding that “the order in which the issues of damages and coverage are to be determined respectively by arbitration and the court should be left within the discretion of the trial judge”
- holding that reservation of insurer’s right to contest coverage does not render damage appraisal clause “void for lack of 7 mutuality”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JORGENSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I would adhere to the panel opinion in American Reliance Ins. Co. v. Village Homes at Country Walk, 632 So.2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). In that opinion, we held that “the insurer’s reservation of its right to deny the claim destroys the mutuality of obligation, is incompatible with the goals of arbitration, and renders illusory any purported agreement to binding arbitration.” American Reliance, 632 So.2d at 107-08 .
The court today not only holds that the arbitration clause is enforceable, but requires a policy holder to front half of the costs of the appraisal of a claim that the carrier may ultimately deny. One wonders what value a *942 policy holder has received for his premium dollar.