Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Annette Peipert

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 14, 2024
• Docket: 2022-1335
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 14, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1335 Lower Tribunal No. 18-18775 ________________

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellant,

vs.

Annette Peipert, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, and C. Ryan Jones, Scot E. Samis and Brandon R. Christian (St. Petersburg), for appellant.

Law Office of Lazaro Vazquez, P.A., and Lazaro Vazquez, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

GORDO, J. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”) appeals an order

granting Annette Peipert’s (“Peipert”) entitlement to prejudgment interest

and an order denying its motion for final summary judgment. As to the

order granting Peipert’s entitlement to prejudgment interest, 1 we reverse

the trial court’s order for the reasons discussed below. As to the order

denying final summary judgment, we dismiss. 2

Peipert was insured by Citizens when her home was damaged by

Hurricane Irma. After Peipert notified Citizens of the loss, Citizens

immediately extended coverage and issued a payment. Peipert then

submitted a supplemental claim and competing repair estimate from her

own public adjuster asserting the amount paid was inadequate. Citizens

granted coverage for the supplemental claim and issued an additional

payment. In June 2018, Peipert filed a suit against Citizens. Thereafter,

the parties proceeded to appraisal. On July 17, 2019, the appraisal panel

1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A). 2 The trial court’s order is not appealable. See Gionis v. Headwest, Inc., 799 So. 2d 416, 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[T]rial court orders denying motions for summary judgment are non-final, non-appealable orders.”); Taggart v. Morgan, 943 So. 2d 250, 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (stating “[t]he rules of appellate procedure do not permit interlocutory appeals of non-final orders denying motions for summary judgment” and dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction).

2 entered an award in favor of Peipert. The award was fully paid by Citizens

two days later. In March 2021, Citizens filed a motion for final summary

judgment. Peipert filed a response in opposition and a cross-motion to

determine her entitlement to prejudgment interest. The trial court held a

hearing on the motions and subsequently denied the motion for final

summary judgment and awarded Peipert prejudgment interest from the

date of loss. This appeal followed.

To be entitled to prejudgment interest, Peipert was required to show

that Citizens denied her claim before later admitting coverage. Peipert’s

argument fails because it was undisputed below that Citizens did not deny

coverage. Rather, the claim arose because the parties disagreed over the

scope of loss and damages, not the existence of coverage. We need go no

further than the complaint and record below to verify that coverage was not

disputed as Peipert specifically pled the dispute was over the “scope and

value of a covered loss.” See Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide, 15 So. 3d

749, 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (finding that “Sunshine has never denied

coverage of [the insured’s] claim, but rather only disputed the amount to be

paid under the policy to satisfy [the] claim”). Because Citizens did not deny

coverage and timely paid the appraisal award within sixty days of the filing

of the award, as required by the terms of the policy, Peipert was not entitled

3 to prejudgment interest. See State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Silber, 72 So. 3d

286, 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“[A]n insured is not entitled to prejudgment

interest when an insurer does not deny coverage, participates in the

appraisal process, and timely pays the appraisal award.”); Jugo v. Am. Sec.

Ins. Co., 56 So. 3d 94, 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming the denial of

prejudgment interest on an appraisal award and finding that the insurer had

not denied coverage where “[t]he dispute turned on quantifying the covered

loss, not the existence of coverage”); Green v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 59

So. 3d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“Inasmuch as Citizens satisfied the

appraisal award within sixty days of the filing of the award, as required by

the terms of the insurance contract, [the insured] was not entitled to

prejudgment interest.”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Blanco, 791 So. 2d 515, 517

(Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (finding the insureds were not entitled to prejudgment

interest where “the insurance policy provisions allowed Allstate sixty days

within which to pay the appraisal award and Allstate made payment within

the allotted time”).

Reversed in part; dismissed in part and remanded for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.