Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. University at 107th Avenue, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. University at 107th Avenue, Inc.

827 So. 2d 1016, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8229, 2002 WL 1285117

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 12, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-2318

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 827 So. 2d 1016 (Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. University at 107th Avenue, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. University at 107th Avenue, Inc., 827 So. 2d 1016, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8229, 2002 WL 1285117 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Scottsdale Insurance Company appeals the entry of a partial summary judgment in favor of its insured, University at 107th Avenue, Inc., in which Scottsdale was ordered to submit to an appraisal. Scottsdale argues that University failed to provide the post-loss information required by the insurance policy. Scottsdale thus contends that the order referring this matter to appraisal was premature, until such time as Scottsdale received the information necessary for Scottsdale to evaluate University’s claim. Because Scottsdale had sufficient information upon which to evaluate University’s claim for damages, we affirm.

In 1999, University suffered hurricane damage and filed a claim for damages with Scottsdale. Scottsdale inspected University’s property and denied University’s claim because its independent adjuster estimated the damages well below University’s claim.

“[T]he nature of the post-loss obligations is merely to provide the insurer with an independent means by which to determine the amount of loss, as opposed to relying solely on the representations of the insured.” United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So.2d 467, 471 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). It cannot be said in this case that the insurer did not have sufficient information from which to assess its insured’s claim.

Subsequent to January 24, 2000, the day on which Scottsdale first denied University’s claim, University provided Scottsdale with a Sworn Proof of Loss, and produced its corporate representative and sole shareholder for an examination under oath. Additionally, at the summary judgment hearing, Scottsdale’s counsel admitted that Scottsdale had obtained what [1017]*1017“Scottsdale wanted post-loss and pre-suit during the course of the suit” and that “the documents that [Scottsdale] asked for post-loss and pre-suit [were] now in [their] possession through discovery.” There was, therefore, an exchange of “adequate information” from which Scottsdale could make a determination as to University’s loss. See Romay, 744 So.2d at 471.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Scottsdale Insurance Company appeals the entry of a partial summary judgment in favor of its insured, University at 107th Avenue, Inc., in which Scottsdale was ordered to submit to an appraisal. Scottsdale argues that University failed to provide the post-loss information required by the insurance policy. Scottsdale thus contends that the order referring this matter to appraisal was premature, until such time as Scottsdale received the information necessary for Scottsdale to evaluate University’s claim. Because Scottsdale had sufficient information upon which to evaluate University’s claim for damages, we affirm.

In 1999, University suffered hurricane damage and filed a claim for damages with Scottsdale. Scottsdale inspected University’s property and denied University’s claim because its independent adjuster estimated the damages well below University’s claim.

“[T]he nature of the post-loss obligations is merely to provide the insurer with an independent means by which to determine the amount of loss, as opposed to relying solely on the representations of the insured.” United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So.2d 467, 471 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). It cannot be said in this case that the insurer did not have sufficient information from which to assess its insured’s claim.

Subsequent to January 24, 2000, the day on which Scottsdale first denied University’s claim, University provided Scottsdale with a Sworn Proof of Loss, and produced its corporate representative and sole shareholder for an examination under oath. Additionally, at the summary judgment hearing, Scottsdale’s counsel admitted that Scottsdale had obtained what [1017]*1017“Scottsdale wanted post-loss and pre-suit during the course of the suit” and that “the documents that [Scottsdale] asked for post-loss and pre-suit [were] now in [their] possession through discovery.” There was, therefore, an exchange of “adequate information” from which Scottsdale could make a determination as to University’s loss. See Romay, 744 So.2d at 471.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

827 So. 2d 1016, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8229, 2002 WL 1285117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scottsdale-insurance-co-v-university-at-107th-avenue-inc-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack