In a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Wood v. GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company (2024 WL 3952571), the court affirmed that unambiguous policy limits remain enforceable even when an appraisal award exceeds those limits. This decision provides valuable guidance for insurers handling post-catastrophe claims.
In Wood, the insureds, Nancy and John Wood, filed a claim to their insurer, GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company, for property damage following Hurricane Ian. Unable to reach an agreement on the amount of the loss, the parties agreed to take their dispute to appraisal. The appraisal award exceeded the policy limits for certain items. Accordingly, GeoVera paid the policy limits, but refused to pay amounts in excess of the policy limits despite the appraisal award. The Woods then sued GeoVera arguing that it underpaid them. In doing so, the Woods sought the full amount of the appraisal award, which, as noted, exceeded the policy limits. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The court ruled in part for GeoVera, upholding the enforceability of the policy limits, but denied summary judgment on other issues, such as whether the full amount owed for the roof was paid and whether interior damage was caused by wind or water, necessitating a trial.
What Was Damaged (And Why It Matters)
The court’s ruling hinged on how the policy limits applied to different areas of damage, which illustrates the challenges in interpreting policy language after appraisals. Here’s how the court broke it down:
- The Pool Enclosure
- Appraisers’ Value: $12,695
- Policy Limit: $5,000
Despite the appraisers’ higher valuation, the court upheld GeoVera’s payment of $5,000, as this was the maximum allowed under the policy. The court confirmed that insurers are not obligated to pay more than the stated limit, even if the damage exceeds that amount.
- The Roof
- Appraisers’ Value: $21,082
- Policy Coverage: The policy only covered 20% of the replacement cost for roofs that were 24 years old or older, capped at $10,000.
GeoVera initially sent the Woods a “coverage letter” stating that they had determined the total roof loss to be $15,338.87 and, based on the 20% coverage for old roofs, tendered $3,067.77 (20% of $15,338.87). However, the insureds requested an appraisal, and the appraisers later valued the roof damage higher, at $21,082.52. As a result, GeoVera was required to apply the 20% policy limit to the appraised amount, meaning they should have paid $4,216 (20% of $21,082.52), not the $3,067.77 they initially tendered based on their own assessment. Since GeoVera failed to show that it paid the correct amount—20% of the appraised loss—its motion for summary judgment regarding the roof payment was denied.
- The Interior
- Appraisers’ Value: $52,282
- Policy Coverage: The policy limited water damage coverage to $10,000 under the water damage endorsement, but there was no specific limit for wind damage
The court determined that it was unclear whether the appraisal panel determined that the interior damage was caused by water or wind. Since the policy had a much lower limit for water damage, a trial was needed to resolve whether the damage was primarily caused by wind or water (which was capped at $10,000).
Takeaway
This case highlights the limits of appraisals. While appraisers determine the extent of loss, questions of coverage—such as whether a specific loss is covered under a policy or the application of policy limits—remain judicial matters. Insurers may apply policy terms and limits to appraisal awards, as GeoVera did, and courts must resolve coverage disputes when parties disagree on policy interpretation.
