Villas at Winding Ridge v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
942 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2019)Words & Phrases
Fire Insurance: AppraisalTrial Judge
Tanya Walton PrattAppellate Judge
St. EveHolding
Appraisal award was final and binding and could not be set aside.Fact Summary
In June 2013, a storm passed over Villas at Winding Ridge ("Winding Ridge"), a condominium complex located in Indiana, causing some minor damage from hail. Winding Ridge did not discover the damage until almost a year later when a contractor inspected the property to estimate the cost of replacing its aging roofs. Remembering its one- year State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm") insurance policy, Winding Ridge submitted a claim to State Farm. Winding Ridge and State Farm inspected the property and exchanged estimates on the amount of the loss, but they could not reach an agreement. Winding Ridge subsequently demanded an appraisal under the insurance policy, and State Farm complied. After exchanging competing appraisals, the umpire upon whom both sides had agreed issued an award, which later became binding.
Winding Ridge filed suit against State Farm alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and promissory estoppel. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court granted in part and denied in part Winding Ridge's cross-motion for partial summary judgment and granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. Winding Ridge now appeals the district court's ruling on State Farm's motion for summary judgment.
We affirm. We hold that the policy is unambiguous and enforceable. There is also no evidence that State Farm breached the policy or acted in bad faith when resolving the claim.
The apraisal arbitration award was proper and the insurer did not act in bad faith. The appraisal provision in the policy was unambiguous and the policyholder failed to identify any unfairness, fraud, collusion or misfeasance committed by umpire that could set aside his proposed award or any bad faith action by the insurer.
The decision not to amend the proposed award for matching shingles does not create a genuine dispute of material fact. Winding Ridge's matching shingles argument was untimely. It tendered the initial claim to State Farm in April 2014. The parties inspected the property several times before Winding Ridge demanded an appraisal. During the appraisal process, the appraisers and umpire inspected the property, and the umpire reached a proposed award on April 30, 2016. It was not until May 20, 2016 that Winding Ridge's appraiser first reported that the shingle manufacturer discontinued the original shingles. Winding Ridge could have raised this issue on November 18, 2015, six months earlier, when it received a letter from the shingle manufacturer GAF stating that direct replacements are not available. It did not. To permit this kind of second guessing would only frustrate the purpose of a binding appraisal in the first place.