Summary
holding that disqualification of party's selected appraiser based upon appraiser's mode of compensation constitutes departure from essential requirements of law
Summary of this case from Felipe v. Allstate Ins. Co.Opinion
No. 98-1599.
November 25, 1998.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Ronald Friedman, J.
Ress, Mintz Truppman and Scott R. Clein, North Miami; St. Louis, Guerra Auslander and Charles M. Auslander, Miami, for petitioner.
Angones, Hunter, McClure, Lynch Williams and Christopher Lynch, Miami, for respondent.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.
The issue and procedural posture of this case are identical to those in Rios v. Tri-State Insurance Co., 714 So.2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), with the exception that the appraisal clause of the Allstate policy before us requires each party to select a "competent and disinterested appraiser," rather than, as in the policy considered in Rios, an "independent" one. As we have already done in Rios itself by specifically "declin[ing] to apply" Central Life Insurance Co. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 466 N.W.2d 257 (Iowa 1991), in which the policy contained the same language as this one, Rios, 714 So.2d at 549, we reject Allstate's claim that this makes any legal difference. The contingent-fee appraiser appointed by the insured was therefore fully qualified under the present clause. For this reason, following Rios, we quash the discovery order under review and direct instead that the parties make the disclosures required by the Code of Ethics. Rios, 714 So.2d at 549.
Rios was decided after the orders below.
Certiorari granted.