131_C165

APPRAISAL HAD TO ADDRESS ORDINANCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ROOF DAMAGE REPAIRS

Commercial Property	Ordinance and Law Coverage
Appraisal	Genuine Issue of Material Fact

Roy Jossfolk submitted a claim to his insurance company alleging that Hurricane Wilma damaged his property. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company (United) denied to pay the wind-related damages but paid the other damages. Jossfolk did not agree with the amount United paid and asked it to submit the claim to appraisal. Jossfolk and United each appointed an appraiser and the two appraisers appointed a neutral umpire.

The umpire submitted a proposed appraisal for damages that excluded repairs to the roof. Jossfolk’s appraiser objected because it did not include Ordinance and Law coverage to replace the roof. He believed doing so was necessary because he did not think that the city’s building department would allow the roof to be repaired unless it met current code. The umpire eventually increased the award on the other damages and allowed removing and replacing 220 square feet (two squares) of concrete roof tile. The final award stated that “Ordinance and Law” was “not appraised.” United paid Jossfolk the amount the umpire awarded.

Jossfolk’s contractor then applied for a permit with the City of Weston (Weston) to repair the roof, claiming that 1,359 square feet (34%) of the roof needed repair. Weston rejected the permit because the repair was for more than the 25% of the total roof area that could be repaired without having to replace the entire roof system in order to conform to the current code.

Jossfolk then asked United to pay to entirely replace the roof under Ordinance and Law coverage. United responded by stating that “this claim was settled in appraisal on April 27, 2009 in which the umpire rejected your request for law and ordinance.” (Emphasis added). This led Jossfolk to file an action for declaratory judgment, seeking a ruling that United must participate in an appraisal for Ordinance and Law coverage. United answered by moving for summary judgment, arguing that the previous appraisal did not include loss for Ordinance and Law coverage, and stating that Jossfolk was not entitled to an appraisal. The trial court granted United’s motion without making a declaration of Jossfolk’s rights.

Jossfolk appealed and challenged the trial court’s final summary judgment in favor of United. The appellate court agreed with Jossfolk as follows:

• Jossfolk had the right to an appraisal of the roof the hurricane damaged with respect to Ordinance and Law coverage once Weston required that he comply with current ordinances to complete repairs.
• There was a genuine issue of material fact about the amount of Jossfolk’s roof that would have to be replaced. This precluded summary judgment in United’s favor.
• United contended that all of Jossfolk’s damages were previously appraised. However, the appellate court noted that the previous proceeding had not appraised Ordinance and Law coverage and could not have because it was not an issue until after Weston rejected the permit to repair based on the 25% maximum that the ordinance allowed.

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case back to it for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. Roy Jossfolk, Appellant, v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellee. No. 4D12-443. March 20, 2013. 110 So.3d 110