Tag: Russell Law Offices

Posted on

Appraiser’s Bias against Insurer does not Render Appraiser Incompetent

In Citizens Property Insurance v. M.A. & F.H. Properties, Ltd., 2007 WL 521916 (Fla. 3DCA 2007), a Homeowner and Insurer went to appraisal to set the amount of the loss.  The neutral umpire agreed with the amount of loss presented by the homeowner’s appraiser.  The insurer moved to set aside the appraisal award and to disqualify the homeowner’s appraiser on the basis that the appraiser was not competent because he was biased against the insurer.  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that pursuant to the insurance policy, the appraiser need only be competent and not independent.  Since competent was not defined, competent only means that the person must be properly or sufficiently qualified.  The homeowner’s appraiser was undeniably competent in that he handled over 1800 appraisals and was published in that field.  As such, the appraiser’s alleged bias against the insurer did not render him incompetent. 

Posted on

Utility that Cut Power to Traffic Light Owes Duty to Public

In Florida Power & Light v. Goldberg, 3D00-63 (Fla. 3DCA 2002), the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that the failure of a utility company to notify a village before cutting power to a traffic light was a breach of a duty to the driving public.

In this case, a girl was killed in a traffic accident involving a traffic signal that was not working.  Prior to the accident, a utility company repair person cut power to a pole that controlled the traffic signal.  The power was turned off so that a repair could be made on a damaged line.

The Court found that the utility company’s duty arose from a contract between the utility company and the village whereby the utility company agreed to notify the village of any planned power outages.  In finding liability, the Court reasoned that the utility company intentionally cut the power and thus the failure of the utility company to advise the village of the loss of power prevented the village from sending a police officer to control the intersection.  The intentional act of cutting power and the failure to warn could not be ignored by the Court as it created a foreseeable risk to others that the utility company had a duty to prevent.

It should be noted that this case is distinguished from Arenado v. Florida Power & Light, 523 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4DCA 1988), which held that a utility company does not have a common-law duty to warn motorists for power outages to traffic signals that happen by way of an accident, storm or mechanical failure.

css.php