With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and remand for an evidentiary hearing on whether [the insured] Mango Hill sufficiently complied with the policy’s post-loss requirements.” (emphasis added) (citing Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So.3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010))). The trial court’s order seems to suggest that our Mango Hill 12 decision substantially changed the requisite standard to obtain appraisal to require something less than full compliance with all post-loss obligations, as had been mandated by our numerous past holdings. However, a full reading of Mango Hill 12, along with a litany of our other cases on this subject, confirms that “sufficient compliance” still requires that all post-loss obligations be satisfied before the trial court can properly exercise its discretion to compel appraisal. Id. (<HOLDING>); see also Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v.

A: holding that an insured must comply with all of the policys postloss obligations before the appraisal clause is triggered  quoting romay 744 so2d at 471
B: holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of  a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured
C: holding that because appraisal is analogous to arbitration the court would apply principles of arbitration law to this dispute regarding an insurance policy appraisal clause
D: holding that an insured has substantially complied with the change of beneficiary provisions of a life insurance policy when he has done all that he could to comply with the provisions
A.