The individuals depicted in this stock photo image are models and are for illustrative purposes only. Website Imagery Disclaimer

A court recently indicated that once one appraisal panel completes a portion of disputed coverage amounts and does not indicate that more items are to be determined by that panel, a new set of appraisers can be named to determine the remaining issues of dispute: 1

Does the Appraisal Provision expressly require one set of appraisers for all matters or all items? It does not. Does the Appraisal Provision from the Policy expressly indicate that once a set of appraisers has been appointed that no different sent of appraisers could be appointed or used in the future for a different aspect of coverage or another species of losses? It does not. Finally, does the Appraisal Provision expressly indicate that a panel continues to operate or continues to possess authority after issuing an award? It does not. Having considered the exhibits and arguments, the Court concludes that Camelot has the better of the argument. This conclusion follows from the three most pertinent documents, i.e., the Policy, the previous Award, and GNY’s motion….

D. Order Compelling Compliance

In accordance with the Policy, each party will select a competent and impartial appraiser. Those two appraisers will select an umpire. If the two designated appraisers cannot agree on an umpire, then either side may request that the selection be made by this Court. If the Court must select an umpire, such a request to the Court must be made by June 3, 2024.

During the recent debate between Steve Badger and myself, we implored appraisers to clearly indicate what coverages were being appraised by the panel so that confusion would not ensue. In this case, the judge noted that in its award, the first appraisal panel clearly stated its job was completed without reserving or providing any indication that it was supposed to do anything further.

Thought For The Day

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.
—Thomas A. Edison

1 Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co. v. Camelot Apartments, No 1:21-cv-1032, 2024 WL 1742378 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 23, 2024).