Sunday, November 15, 2009

Wroe v. Amica: A Short Appraisal Opinion Being Used For Unintended Reasons

For whatever reason, Wroe v. Amica, 991 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) is continually raised for broad propositions by both plaintiffs and defendants.  One attorney relied solely on this case and was somewhat upset to learn the argument she believed it stood for was not even an issue in the case. 

First, here is the entire text of the opinion:
The appellant, William J. Wroe, appeals the final order of the trial court with respect to an award of an appraisal panel convened pursuant to a policy of automobile insurance to consider the damages sustained by the appellant’s vehicle as a result of an accident. While we affirm the order of the trial court, we do so without prejudice to the appellant’s right to seek an additional award should further damages be uncovered when the vehicle is repaired.
We pulled the briefs pulled case to see what the court meant with its short statement.  You can find each of the relevant documents at the links below and determine what was at issue and, more importantly, what was not at issue:

Update: I am updating this post to add a link to the oral argument that took place at the Fifth District on September 9, 2009.  You can click here to view the oral argument from the Fifth District.


Post a Comment