A federal court has invalidated a $187 million hurricane damage appraisal awarded to a Florida condominium association, ruling that the appraiser representing the property owners failed to properly determine the amount of loss.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, ordered a new appraisal for Portofino Towers, a five-building condominium complex damaged by Hurricane Sally in 2020. The court found that procedural and professional lapses by the condominium association’s appraiser rendered the award void.

The case stemmed from insurance claims filed by the Portofino Condominium Association following the hurricane. Each side appointed appraisers under the policy’s appraisal clause, with an umpire selected to resolve disagreements. The insurers’ appraiser valued the losses at about $18 million, while Portofino’s appraiser initially claimed roughly $13 million in damages before later submitting a $233 million statement of loss.

According to court documents, Portofino’s appraiser described the $233 million figure as “a starting point” rather than a final assessment. The court noted that the appraiser failed to calculate a definitive loss amount, instead deferring to the umpire to determine the final value—a $187 million award delivered in seven parts between February and July 2023.

In their filing, the 13 insurers involved sought to have the appraisal voided, alleging fraud, lack of required notices, and noncompliance with policy terms. They also challenged the impartiality of the condo association’s appraiser, pointing out that a pricing expert involved in the appraisal hoped to secure future repair work, which could have created a conflict of interest.

BestWire reported that the court ultimately focused on two key findings: that the condo’s appraiser failed to state the “amount of loss” as required under the policy and that this failure amounted to misconduct under Florida law. These issues were sufficient for the court to vacate the $187 million award and grant summary judgment in favour of the insurers.

Because those findings were decisive, the court did not address the insurers’ remaining allegations.

NEWS PAGE

HOME