Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Haigler

Filing 12

ORDER denying without prejudice 8 Motion to Stay Appraisal Pending Resolution of Petition for Declaratory Relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek on 1/28/2025. (CGW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:25-CV-33-SPC-KCD

v.
KENNETH HAIGLER,
Defendant,
/

ORDER
Plaintiff Scottsdale Insurance Company filed this declaratory judgment
action asking the Court to intervene in “the ongoing appraisal process
between Scottsdale and Respondent, Kenneth Haigler.” (Doc. 1.)1 Citing the
Court’s “authority to control [its] own docket,” Scottsdale now moves ex parte
to stay appraisal “until resolution of the [declaratory judgment] [p]etition.”
(Doc. 8 at 2.)
Scottsdale correctly states that “courts have unquestionable authority
to control” the cases before them. Buxton v. Full Sail, LLC, No. 6:24-CV-747JSS-DCI, 2024 WL 4839012, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2024). But this
inherent power extends only as far as the case itself. It does not authorize the
court to reach beyond its own proceedings. The appraisal process Scottsdale

Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history,
and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.
1

seeks to enjoin was not compelled by this Court, but rather was initiated by
the parties separately. As such, Scottsdale’s motion is best viewed as a
request “to interfere with proceedings in another forum.” Mar-Len of
Louisiana, Inc. v. Parsons-Gilbane, 773 F.2d 633, 635 n.1 (5th Cir. 1985).
The relief Scottsdale seeks is thus not a stay but a preliminary
injunction. Scottsdale wants this Court “to exercise its equity powers to halt
action of its litigants outside of its own court proceedings—the classic form of
injunction.” A. & E. Plastik Pak Co. v. Monsanto Co., 396 F.2d 710, 713 (9th
Cir. 1968). Yet none of the procedural steps necessary to grant ex parte
injunctive relief have been followed here, and thus Scottsdale’s motion must
be denied. See Saito v. Lewis, No. 2:23-CV-266-SPC-KCD, 2023 WL 4759311,
at *4 (M.D. Fla. July 26, 2023).
Finally, even ignoring any procedural issues, the Court doubts whether
Scottsdale can succeed on the merits as needed to secure a preliminary
injunction that stops appraisal. See Miles v. Jenkins, No. 2:11-CV-150-ID,
2011 WL 2112430, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 25, 2011) (“[T]he first prerequisite
for issuance of preliminary injunctive relief [is] whether Plaintiff has proven
a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.”).
Scottsdale complains that Haigler has requested an appraisal award
with “items not covered under the terms of the insurance policy.” (Doc. 8 at
1.) Appraisal is “an extra-judicial mechanism” that calculates the amount of
2

loss in an insurance dispute. My Child Care Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines
Ins. Co., No. 2:24-CV-220-JES-KCD, 2024 WL 2053827, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr.
22, 2024). Scottsdale provides no authority that this Court can (or should)
interject itself into these extra-judicial proceedings to address a coverage
dispute. See, e.g., Waterford Condo. Ass’n of Collier Cnty., Inc. v. Empire
Indem. Ins. Co., No. 2:19-CV-81-FTM-38NPM, 2019 WL 4861196, at *1 (M.D.
Fla. Oct. 2, 2019) (adopting the majority view among Florida courts that gives
trial courts discretion over the relative timing of appraisal and coverage
determinations). What is more, the appraisal process has mechanisms to
address Scottsdale’s concerns. The underlying policy requires that each party
select an appraiser who “will separately state the actual cash value, the
replacement cost, and the amount of loss to each item.” (Doc. 1 at 4-5.) In case
of disagreement, like Scottsdale claims here, the dispute is sent to a neutral
umpire. (Id.) So even if Haigler is demanding damages outside the policy,
that fact alone does not seem to offer a cognizable injury where the umpire
has yet to accept those damages or even act.
For these reasons, Scottsdale’s Motion to Stay Appraisal Pending
Resolution of Petition for Declaratory Relief (Doc. 8) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

3

ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 28, 2025.

4