Heritage Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Heritage”) appeals the trial courts May 20, 2020 order granting Virginia Gardens Condominium Association, Inc.’s (“insured”) motion to compel appraisal. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the insureds appraisal motion, the trial court rejected Heritages principal argument that the insureds repair estimate did not evidence a disagreement on the scope of a covered loss, but, rather, constituted a supplemental claim. The trial courts conclusion that the insured did not make a supplemental claim is supported by competent, substantial evidence and the trial courts determination that the parties have a disagreement ripe for appraisal was correct as a matter of law; furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the appraisal to go forward while preserving Heritages right to raise coverage defenses.
1
See Barbato v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 319 So. 3d 96, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 17, 2021) (“Ordinarily, we review a trial courts order compelling appraisal de novo as to the application of the law to the facts, and review factual findings for competent, substantial evidence. However, we reiterate that ‘we have left it to the trial courts discretion to decide ‘the order in which the issues of damages and coverage are to be determined by arbitration and the court.’’ Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill Condo. Assn 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (quoting Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins, 34 So. 3d 753, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).”) (citation omitted).
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Heritage argued below that the insured forfeited coverage by lying on the subject policys renewal application. We express no opinion as to the merits of this coverage defense.
PER CURIAM.