Key Points

  • The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed final summary judgment for Citizens Property Insurance Corporation against two Hurricane Ian policyholders.
  • The court held that Citizens' payment of an appraisal award within the policy's 60-day period was not a confession of judgment because the claims process had not broken down and the policyholders' lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve the dispute.
  • As a result, the policyholders, who sued while appraisal was still underway, are not entitled to prejudgment interest or attorney's fees.
  • Following its Oct. 2, 2026 decision in Letteri v. Safepoint Insurance Co., the court held that section 627.70152(4)(b), Florida Statutes, permits suit when appraisal has not concluded within 90 days but does not set a deadline for completing appraisal.

A Florida appeals court ruled Friday that two homeowners who sued Citizens Property Insurance Corporation over Hurricane Ian damage while an appraisal of their claim was still underway cannot collect attorney's fees or prejudgment interest, because Citizens paid the appraisal award on time and the lawsuit did not produce the payment.

A three-judge panel of the Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed a final summary judgment for Citizens against Susan Reed and Kent Lonngren. Judge Stargel wrote the opinion, and Judges Mize and Gannam concurred. The panel held that the Lee County trial court "correctly declined to apply the confession of judgment doctrine in this 'race to the courthouse.'"

Reed and Lonngren had argued that Citizens' payment of the award amounted to a confession of judgment. Under that theory, the homeowners said, they were entitled to summary judgment, prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. The ruling applies a decision the same court issued Oct. 2, Letteri v. Safepoint Insurance Co., and holds again that a Florida statute allowing policyholders to sue after 90 days of unfinished appraisal does not set a deadline for appraisal to end.

According to the opinion, the homeowners reported their Hurricane Ian claim to Citizens on Oct. 4, 2022. Citizens accepted coverage and paid $11,101.19. The homeowners then submitted their own repair estimate of $157,727.00. Over the following months, Citizens reinspected the property, reissued its earlier payment at the homeowners' request and made additional payments, the last of them on June 1, 2023.

Eight days after that last payment, the homeowners filed a notice of intent to litigate. Citizens then invoked appraisal, a policy process in which each side picks an appraiser to set the amount of loss and the two appraisers choose a neutral umpire to resolve any disagreement. Under the policy, a decision agreed to by any two of the three sets the loss, and either party may ask a judge to choose the umpire if the appraisers cannot agree on one within 15 days.

Both sides named appraisers, but the process stalled over the choice of an umpire. On Sept. 26, 2023, before appraisal was finished, the homeowners sued Citizens for breach of contract. Their complaint alleged that Citizens had failed to complete appraisal within the 90-day period in section 627.70152(4)(b), Florida Statutes.

Citizens moved to stay the suit and compel appraisal. It filed an affidavit from its corporate representative stating that the homeowners' appraiser was unwilling to agree to the selection of any umpires other than the ones he wanted. Circuit Judge Kyle Cohen granted the motion and ordered the parties to try to agree on an umpire, warning that the court would otherwise pick one from their combined list.

The parties then agreed on an umpire, who issued an appraisal award in the homeowners' favor. The opinion does not state the amount. Citizens paid the award within the 60 days the policy required.

Both sides moved for summary judgment. Citizens argued that the claim had been resolved as the policy prescribed and that the matter would have been resolved without litigation had the homeowners simply participated in appraisal. The trial court agreed, ruling that Citizens "cannot be found to have breached the policy here as Citizens complied with the appraisal provisions and timely paid the appraisal award as set forth in the policy." Judge Cohen also ruled that Citizens had not confessed judgment and that the homeowners were not owed prejudgment interest. The trial court later denied the homeowners' motion for rehearing.

On appeal, the Sixth District reviewed the ruling de novo. Judge Stargel relied on Letteri, in which the court held that the doctrine does not apply when the claims process has not broken down, the policyholder did not have to sue to obtain a recovery, and the policyholder sues anyway. The policyholder in Letteri had also sued during appraisal, and the insurer had also paid the award within the time the policy required. The court wrote in Letteri that "[n]obody forced Letteri to sue to receive his benefits, and his lawsuit did not act as a necessary catalyst to resolve the dispute."

Judge Stargel found the same conditions in the Citizens record. "Likewise, in this case, there was no breakdown in the claims adjusting process, and Appellants' lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve the dispute," Judge Stargel wrote. The record, the opinion said, showed that Citizens "quickly accepted coverage and issued payment, conducted an additional investigation, issued additional payments, promptly demanded appraisal upon receiving the notice of intent, and timely paid the resulting award."

The panel also cited the Third District Court of Appeal's 2024 decision in Valdivieso v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp. In that case, the Third District declined to apply the doctrine where "there was no breakdown in the claims process that served as the catalyst for Insureds' filing their lawsuit."

The court rejected the homeowners' reading of the statute, as it had in Letteri. The provision states that if appraisal "has not been concluded within 90 days after the expiration of the 10-day notice of intent to initiate litigation," the policyholder "may immediately file suit without providing the insurer additional notice." The court wrote that while the statute "permits an insured to sue when appraisal has not concluded within ninety days," it does not "constitute a deadline for an appraisal's completion." The panel rejected the homeowners' remaining arguments without discussion.

Michael A. Cassel of Cassel Law, P.A., in Hollywood, represented Reed and Lonngren. Citizens was represented by Joye B. Walford, C. Ryan Jones and David T. Burr of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry, LLP, in St. Petersburg.

The decision leaves the summary judgment for Citizens in place. Under the notice printed on the opinion, the ruling is not final until the time to file a motion for rehearing expires and any timely motion is decided.