When a homeowner and their insurance company disagree about how much storm or property damage really costs to repair, many insurance policies include a tool called “appraisal.” Appraisal is a way to resolve a dispute over the dollar amount of a loss outside of a full-blown trial.
A common question is timing: if the insurer never asked for appraisal before the homeowner sued, can it still ask for it afterward? Or does waiting too long mean the insurer gave up that right? The answer matters to both policyholders and insurers because it shapes how these disputes get resolved.
This issue came up in People’s Trust Insurance Company v. Fernandez, a recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Key Takeaway
Under Florida law, an insurer can invoke a policy’s appraisal clause even after a lawsuit has started. Whether the right was given up depends on whether the insurer acted in a way inconsistent with appraisal — not simply on the fact that it waited until litigation began.
The question is more specific:
- Did the insurer actively participate in the lawsuit or behave in a way that clashed with wanting an appraisal?
What happened between the homeowners and the insurer?
The homeowners filed a property damage claim. The insurer inspected the property and estimated the repair cost at a figure below the policy’s deductible, and it issued a coverage letter explaining that no repairs or payment would follow unless the loss was shown to exceed the deductible.
More than two years later, the homeowners obtained a repair estimate that was dramatically higher. The insurer acknowledged the estimate but stood by its earlier determination. In response to the homeowners’ notice of intent to sue, the insurer offered a small amount to settle. It later closed the claim, and the homeowners then filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit.
What was the dispute in court?
After being sued, the insurer filed an answer that raised the policy’s appraisal provision as a defense, and it soon moved to compel appraisal. The homeowners objected, arguing the insurer had waited too long and failed to timely invoke appraisal.
The trial court agreed with the homeowners. It found that the insurer’s conduct — keeping its position that the damage was below the deductible, saying no repairs or payment would come, closing the claim, and making a small settlement offer — was inconsistent with the right to appraisal and amounted to giving up that right.
What did the appeals court decide?
The Fifth District reversed. Because the facts were undisputed, the court reviewed the decision fresh, without deference to the trial court’s conclusion.
The court explained that Florida applies principles similar to those used for arbitration when deciding whether an appraisal right has been waived. A key point: appraisal can be invoked for the first time even after litigation has begun. The real test is whether the insurer actively participated in the lawsuit or engaged in conduct inconsistent with the right to appraisal.
The waiver test in plain terms
Waiting until after a lawsuit starts is not, by itself, a waiver. What counts is whether the party’s actions were genuinely at odds with wanting an appraisal.
Why didn’t the insurer’s actions count as giving up the right?
The court concluded the insurer’s steps were not inconsistent with seeking appraisal. It pointed to several things:
- A settlement offer, on its own, is not a waiver — it can simply be an early attempt to resolve the dispute without formal proceedings.
- The insurer raised appraisal as an affirmative defense in its answer and promptly moved to compel it.
- Moving quickly to demand appraisal after a complaint is filed does not show conduct inconsistent with that right.
Because the insurer had not waived the right, the appeals court sent the case back with instructions to grant the motion to compel.
Why does this matter to homeowners and policyholders?
This decision illustrates how Florida courts think about the timing of appraisal demands. For people involved in a property insurance dispute, it shows that an insurer’s earlier position on coverage or its willingness to discuss settlement does not automatically strip away its ability to later ask for appraisal.
It also highlights how much the specific facts and the exact sequence of events can drive the analysis. Each situation turns on its own circumstances, and this summary describes only what happened in one case.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.