[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

Nos. 22-11059, 22-10877, 22-11060, 22-10889 ____________________

POSITANO PLACE AT NAPLES I CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation, POSITANO PLACE AT NAPLES II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation, POSITANO PLACE AT NAPLES III CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation, POSITANO PLACE AT NAPLES IV CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus USCA11 Case: 22-11059 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 10/20/2023 Page: 2 of 61

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11059

EMPIRE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket Nos. 2:21-cv-00178-SPC-MRM, 2:21-cv-00181-SPC- MRM, 2:21-cv-00183-SPC-MRM, 2:21-cv-00186-SPC-MRM ____________________

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. LAGOA, Circuit Judge: On our own motion, we vacate our prior opinion, and sub- stitute it with the following opinion. Empire’s motion for panel rehearing is denied as moot. These appeals 1 are about a pending insurance contract dis- pute between Positano Place at Naples I Condominium Associa- tion, Inc., and Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, which is- sued an insurance policy (the “Policy”) to Positano for coverage of five buildings that Positano owns in Naples, Florida. Following Hurricane Irma, Positano filed a first-party claim for property in- surance benefits under the Policy, claiming that Hurricane Irma

1 We previously consolidated case numbers 22-11059, 22-10877, 22-11060, and

22-10889 for purposes of hearing oral argument in those cases. We now sua sponte consolidate those cases for purposes of resolving these appeals. USCA11 Case: 22-11059 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 10/20/2023 Page: 3 of 61

22-11059 Opinion of the Court 3

damaged its property and that the damage was covered by the Pol- icy. After Empire investigated Positano’s claim, Empire deter- mined that there was coverage as to only three of the five buildings covered by the Policy but disagreed as to the amount of the loss. In response, Positano sought to invoke appraisal based on the Pol- icy’s appraisal provision. When Empire did not respond to Posi- tano’s appraisal demand, Positano sued Empire in Florida state court, and Empire removed the case to federal court based on di- versity jurisdiction. Following removal, Positano moved to compel appraisal and to stay the case pending the resolution of the appraisal proceed- ings, which Empire opposed. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the district court grant Positano’s motion, and, over Empire’s objection, the district court ordered the parties to appraisal and stayed the proceedings pending appraisal. Empire timely appealed the district court’s order. We issued a jurisdictional question to the parties asking them to addre