Courts continue to be asked to referee disputes about how appraisal should be conducted, what an award must look like, and if it should have line item delineations of damage. A recent federal ruling out of Florida addressed just such a fight between Great Lakes Insurance SE and Ming & Kwang Development Corporation. 1
The case arose after Hurricane Ian damaged commercial property in Naples. The insurer pushed for the appraisal panel to use its preferred “form” requiring separation of replacement cost value, actual cash value, direct and indirect damages, and any costs associated with matching. The policyholder rejected that demand, insisting that the policy itself contains no such requirement.
Great Lakes made several arguments in support of its position. It urged the court to read the policy “as a whole” and argued that because the Loss Payment condition makes replacement cost payments contingent upon actual repair, the award must break out RCV from ACV to prevent premature payment.
Great Lakes then claimed that Florida case law supports line-item appraisal awards when courts have instructed panels to separate different categories of benefits, pointing to decisions involving ordinance and law coverage, debris removal, and other policy components.
The insurer’s most aggressive stance was on the issue of matching. Citing the homeowners matching statute, which explicitly applies only to residential policies, Great Lakes argued that commercial policies provide no coverage for matching. In its view, any attempt to fold matching into an appraisal award would be improper because it would force the insurer to pay something not owed under the policy.
I would suggest that insurers allowing their insurance defense attorneys to adopt a “win at all costs” mentality and argue against matching of commercial property, which has heretofore always been considered during adjustment, be considered bad faith. Hoping a judge will make a mistake and change the way an insurer and entire industry adjusts claims certainly is a lack of good faith. Good faith should apply during litigation.
The policyholder filed an excellent legal brief and countered that none of these arguments changed the fundamental appraisal provision in the contract, which said nothing about line-itemization, timing, or matching carve-outs. Florida law is clear that courts cannot rewrite contracts to add conditions the insurer now wishes it had drafted.
Cases across the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida have rejected insurer attempts to compel line-item awards absent explicit policy text. The policyholder also emphasized that matching can still fall within the coverage grant, since the policy insures against “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property” and requires repairs to be of “like kind and quality.” Under that wording, a repaired property that is obviously mismatched may still be considered damaged. The lack of a statute mandating matching in commercial policies does not logically lead to the conclusion that matching is prohibited in those policies.
The court sided with the policyholder. It noted that Great Lakes essentially conceded that the policy’s plain language does not require delineation of RCV, ACV, or matching. While a line-item award may sometimes be helpful, the court explained, the real question is whether it can be forced on a party who objects. The answer, under Florida law, is no.
Federal and state decisions have consistently held that compelling itemization not found in the policy would amount to rewriting the contract. The court distinguished the insurer’s authorities, pointing out that in some cases the parties had agreed to itemization, and in others the issue was not contested. None supported the idea that an insurer can unilaterally impose its own appraisal form.
On the important issue of matching, the court recognized that Florida’s statute applies to homeowners’ insurance but rejected the insurer’s illogical leap that commercial policies therefore must provide zero matching. The absence of a statutory mandate does not equate to a prohibition, and commercial policies can still cover matching when their language supports it.
There are a number of lessons for appraisers, umpires, and parties to an insurance dispute. First, appraisal is a contractual mechanism, and courts will enforce it as written rather than adding conditions an insurer might find convenient.
Second, insurers cannot use the lack of a statutory matching requirement for commercial policies to argue that such coverage is categorically excluded. The insurer’s attempt to twist silence in the statute into a broad prohibition illustrates how illogical arguments can undermine credibility. In the end, the policyholder was entitled to an appraisal under the policy’s actual terms, not under the insurer’s redrafted version.
Finally, I was impressed with the depth of research and arguments made by the policyholder’s counsel. The lesson is that attorneys make a difference in the outcome of cases. Policyholders should select their counsel wisely and after a diligent search.
Fifteen years ago, I wrote:
The trend is clear–itemized appraisal awards are requested more often. Whether you think appraisal awards should be itemized or not, the entire controversy can leave one very unsatisfied with the entire appraisal experience. 2
Amazing how some debates have not changed over time.
Thought For The Day
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
1 Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Ming & Kwang Dev’t Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00451(M.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2025).
2 Chip Merlin, Requests for Itemized and Line By Line Appraisal Awards Become More Common, Prop. Ins. Coverage Law Blog (Oct. 28, 2010).