PEOPLE TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY v. SOCARRAS (2020)

Affirmed. See People's Trust Ins. Co. v. Ortega, 306 So.3d 280, 284 (Fla. 3d DCA June 24, 2020) (“We have held that when an insurer reasonably disputes whether an insured has sufficiently complied with a policy's post-loss conditions so as to trigger the policy's appraisal provision, a question of fact is created that must be resolved by the trial court before the trial court may compel appraisal. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Concepcion, 83 So. 3d 908, 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Gutierrez, 59 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass'n 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Maytin, 51 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).”); Am. Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So. 3d 905, 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[W]hile the interpretation of the terms of an insurance contract normally presents an issue of law, the question of whether certain actions constitute compliance with the contract often presents an issue of fact. See State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Figueroa, 218 So. 3d 886, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (‘Whether an insured substantially complied with policy obligations is a question of fact.’ (emphasis added); Solano v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 155 So. 3d 367, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (‘A question of fact remains as to whether there was sufficient compliance with the cooperation provisions of the policy to provide State Farm with adequate information to settle the loss claims or go to an appraisal, thus precluding a forfeiture of benefits owed to the insureds.’) (emphasis added).”).

PER CURIAM.