         FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                          No. 1D17-2632
                  _____________________________

MKL ENTERPRISES LLC, d/b/a
DRIMAXX,

    Appellant,

    v.

AMERICAN TRADITIONS
INSURANCE COMPANY,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Tatiana Salvador, Judge.

                          March 7, 2019

M.K. THOMAS, J.

    MKL Enterprises LLC (“DriMaxx”) appeals an order granting
American Traditions Insurance Company’s (“ATIC”) motion to
compel appraisal and abate litigation. DriMaxx argues the trial
court erred by compelling appraisal prior to making a
determination of whether an enforceable agreement exists and if
ATIC is “wholly denying” coverage under the homeowner’s
insurance policy. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

     The standard of review applicable to an order compelling
appraisal under an insurance policy is de novo. Fortune v. Gulf
Coast Tree Care Inc., 148 So. 3d 827, 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014);
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ashe, 50 So. 3d 645, 650 (Fla. 1st DCA
2010).
     Generally, ‘“[a]ppraisal clauses are preferred, as they provide
a mechanism for prompt resolution of claims and discourage the
filing of needless lawsuits.’” First Protective Ins. Co. v. Hess, 81 So.
3d 482, 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (quoting Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc.
v. Olympus Ass’n, Inc., 34 So. 3d 791, 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).
Appraisals are appropriate where an insurance company “admits
that there is a covered loss, but there is a disagreement on the
amount of loss.” Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So. 2d
1021, 1025 (Fla. 2002) (emphasis in original). By tendering the
check, ATIC admitted coverage for some damage while declining
to cover all repair costs. Thus, ATIC did not “wholly deny”
coverage. See People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Tracey, 251 So. 3d 931, 933
(Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

     Here, ATIC, the insurer, tendered a check for its estimation of
covered damage. In so doing, ATIC thereby “waives any coverage
defense it might otherwise have had.” Scottsdale, 666 So. 2d at 947.
Furthermore, in choosing appraisal as the appropriate resolution
forum, ATIC “admits that there is a covered loss.” Johnson, 828
So. 2d at 1025.

    The order of the trial court compelling appraisal is AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J. and, JAY, J. concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________


Corinne L. Heller, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Thomas R. Diana and William R. Burke of Zinober Diana, P.A., St.
Petersburg; Dorothy V. DiFiore and Karen Shimonsky of
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.



                                   2
