State Farm v. Roof Pros storm division

A stand-alone petition to appoint umpire does not invoke a Florida trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. In State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Roof Pros Storm Division, Inc., 346 So. 3d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022), the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that four appraisal cases begun with nothing more than a petition asking the court to pick an umpire never properly reached the court at all. Every order entered in them, including the final judgments confirming the appraisal awards, was void.

Facts

Four homeowners in St. Johns County, each insured by State Farm Florida Insurance Company, made claims for hail damage to their homes. Each homeowner then assigned the post-loss policy benefits to the roofing contractor, Roof Pros Storm Division, Inc. State Farm afforded coverage on every claim but disputed the amount of loss. Appraisers were selected, yet even after the appraisals the parties still could not agree on the amount owed.

Each policy’s appraisal clause followed a familiar pattern. Each side selects a competent, disinterested appraiser. The two appraisers then select a competent, impartial umpire. If they cannot agree, either party may ask “a judge of a court of record” in the state where the home is located to select one.

State Farm invoked that clause by filing a Petition to Appoint Umpire in each case. Nothing else was filed: no complaint for breach of contract, no action for declaratory relief, and no other recognized claim. The circuit court appointed an umpire, the umpire set the awards, and the court entered final judgments confirming them after denying State Farm’s motion to overturn the umpire awards. State Farm appealed all four judgments (Case Nos. 5D20-2415, 5D20-2418, 5D20-2419, and 5D20-2420), which the Fifth District decided together in a single opinion filed July 1, 2022.

Issue: Does a Petition to Appoint Umpire Invoke Jurisdiction?

Can a bare petition to appoint umpire, unaccompanied by a complaint for breach of contract, declaratory relief, or any other cause of action recognized by the Florida Constitution or Florida Statutes, invoke a circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to appoint an umpire and confirm the resulting appraisal award?

Holding

No. In an opinion by Judge Harris, joined by Judges Nardella and Wozniak, the Fifth District held that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in all four cases because a petition to appoint umpire is not a pleading that can invoke it. A judgment entered without subject-matter jurisdiction is void, so the court reversed the final judgments confirming the appraisal awards and remanded. The reversal was expressly without prejudice to either party filing a timely and appropriate complaint alleging a viable cause of action.

Rationale

Jurisdiction comes from law, not from the policy. Subject-matter jurisdiction, the power of a court to deal with the class of cases to which a particular case belongs, is conferred only by constitution or statute. Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So. 2d 179, 181 (Fla. 1994). Parties cannot create it by agreement. MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp., 771 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The court therefore rejected State Farm’s initial argument that the policy’s “judge of a court of record” language supplied jurisdiction, calling it “wholly unpersuasive.”

There is no such cause of action. The court agreed with the Second District’s observation in State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Parrish, 312 So. 3d 145, 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), that a petition to compel appraisal is not among the civil petitions Florida Statutes authorize, and that no common-law cause of action exists for that kind of discrete claim. The Second District had said this “would seem to be problematic.” The Fifth District’s answer: “Our sister court was right.”

A proper pleading is a jurisdictional prerequisite. A proper initial pleading is essential to initiate an action because its purpose is to invoke the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Pro-Art Dental Lab, Inc. v. V-Strategic Grp., LLC, 986 So. 2d 1244, 1252 (Fla. 2008). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(a) requires a complaint or, when a statute or rule designates one, a petition. Both sides acknowledged that no statute or rule authorizes a petition to appoint umpire.

The petition to appoint umpire pleaded no recognized claim. State Farm never alleged that its insured materially breached the policy, never sought specific performance from the insured, never claimed doubt about its rights under the policy, and never alleged an amount in controversy. That last omission mattered: section 86.011, Florida Statutes, grants circuit and county courts declaratory jurisdiction only “within their respective jurisdictional amounts.” In the court’s words, the petition simply asked the trial court to end a stalemate by seeking specific performance not from the insured, but from the court itself.

The defect was jurisdictional, not technical. At oral argument State Farm described a petition to appoint umpire as common practice for insureds and insurers alike; in a supplemental brief it reversed course and argued its own petitions were insufficient to invoke jurisdiction. The court agreed that the bare-bones petitions could not fairly be called merely procedurally improper. A trial court “lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine matters which are not the subject of proper pleading,” Carroll & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24, 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), and a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction renders a judgment void, Hardman v. Koslowski, 135 So. 3d 434, 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Why It Still Matters

Roof Pros remains good law and continues to be cited. The Third District relied on it for the rule that a judgment entered without subject-matter jurisdiction is void in Florida Keys Towing, Inc. v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., No. 3D2023-1009 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 26, 2025), and the Fifth District cited it again in Vernon v. Young, No. 5D2025-1922 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 14, 2025).

Parrish, the Second District decision the court relied on, was later approved by the Florida Supreme Court on a different issue: an appraiser who will be paid as a public adjuster on a contingency fee is not “disinterested.” Parrish v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 356 So. 3d 771 (Fla. 2023). The Supreme Court did not address the petition procedure.

The case also shows that subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even on appeal and even by the party that filed the case. Here, the insurer that started the proceedings successfully attacked each petition to appoint umpire it had filed after the umpire awards were confirmed over its objection. One more note: Roof Pros was an assignee. Florida has since invalidated post-loss assignments of benefits under residential and commercial property policies issued on or after January 1, 2023 (section 627.7152, Florida Statutes), so most appraisal disputes today are between insurer and policyholder. The jurisdictional rule applies the same way.

Practice Points for a Petition to Appoint Umpire

• Never file a bare petition to appoint umpire. Plead a recognized cause of action, such as declaratory relief under Chapter 86 or breach of contract, and request appointment of an umpire as relief within that action.
• Allege the amount in controversy. A petition to appoint umpire usually omits it, but declaratory jurisdiction follows each court’s monetary limits, so state the amount and file in the correct court.
• Do not rely on the policy for jurisdiction. Language allowing either party to ask “a judge of a court of record” to select an umpire does not confer it.
• Check presuit requirements. Before filing suit on a residential or commercial property policy, confirm whether the presuit notice requirement of section 627.70152, Florida Statutes, applies.
• Audit old judgments. An appraisal award confirmed in a case started only by a petition to appoint umpire is exposed to attack as void. Evaluate whether a properly pleaded action is needed to protect it.
• Mind the clock. The reversal was without prejudice, but a refiled complaint must still be timely.

Read the Opinion

If you are a policyholder, contractor, or business owner facing an appraisal impasse or a dispute over a petition to appoint umpire, contact Cox Law, PLLC. We serve clients throughout Florida. The full opinion is available for download below.

Official opinion on the Florida courts website: State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Roof Pros Storm Div., Inc., No. 5D20-2415 (Fla. 5th DCA July 1, 2022) (PDF).

---

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article or contacting Cox Law, PLLC through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information in this article without first seeking professional legal counsel. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.