Appraisal Award Must be Rejected if Appraiser Has a Financial Interest in a Potential Award
Post 5019
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g7A5xjNz, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gzANawd6 and at https://lnkd.in/gGrp_PDZ, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
New England Property Services Group, LLC appealed from a January 23, 2024 order denying the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider a denial of the plaintiff’s petition to confirm an appraisal award. The Superior Court granted the defendant, Vermont Mutual Insurance Company’s (defendant),cross-petition to vacate the award based on partiality on the part of the plaintiff’s appraiser.
In New England Property Services Group, LLC v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company, No. 2024-67-Appeal, Supreme Court of Rhode Island (March 10, 2025) the Supreme Court Applied state law.
FACTS
Brandy Hamel and Scott Parker (the insureds) made claim to Vermont Mutual for loss caused by wind damage to the insured’s property located in Greenville, Rhode Island. The insureds engaged plaintiff to complete the repairs at their home in exchange for the assignment of their insurance claim to plaintiff. The defendant processed the claimed loss and provided an estimate to plaintiff. The plaintiff disagreed with the estimate and invoked the appraisal process established in the insurance agreement.
THE APPRAISAL CLAUSE
The appraisal clause in the contract allows the determination of loss by submitting the dispute over the amount to a panel of three appraisers.
Steven Ceceri (Ceceri), the principal of plaintiff, was appointed by plaintiff as its appraiser for the dispute. The defendant appointed Vincent Cicci (Cicci) as its own appraiser. According to the terms of the appraisal clause, Ceceri and Cicci were to agree on a person to serve as appraisal umpire. The two men could not agree, and Felix Carlone (Carlone) was appointed as umpire by the Superior Court.
The appraisal concluded with an award signed by Ceceri and Carlone, with Cicci refusing to sign, according to defendant, because he believed that the award was not supported by the facts presented. Plaintiff filed a petition to confirm the appraisal award under Rhode Island’s Arbitration Act in the Superior Court. The defendant filed a cross-petition to vacate the award arguing that Ceceri was ineligible to serve as appraiser for plaintiff because of his financial interest in a potential award.
The Superior Court entered an order granting defendant’s cross-petition to vacate the appraisal award and denying plaintiff’s petition to confirm the appraisal award.
After defendant objected, the Superior Court denied plaintiff’s motion. The hearing justice determined that the omission of the term “disinterested” from the insurance contract did not negate the categorization of the appraisal process as an arbitration. Specifically, he declared that plaintiff “continuously promoted” the appraisal proceedings as arbitration throughout the process.
DISCUSSION
The plaintiff asserts that the public policy is efficient resolution of insurance disputes that have been served by the appraisal proceeding. The plaintiff further avers that Rhode Island has not universally equated appraisal with arbitration and that the Arbitration Act does not apply to this appraisal proceeding.
The Supreme Court concluded that it is well settled in New Hampshire that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the Supreme Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings.
The Arbitration Act has no requirement that the arbitrators be disinterested; rather, they are only prohibited from engaging in partiality or corruption. Since the Plaintiff, sitting as an appraiser, had a financial interest in the outcome he was engaging in partiality or corruption.
The Supreme Court concluded that plaintiff’s actions revealed his willingness to use every judicial avenue available to derive an unfair advantage if it were permitted to now claim that the appraisal proceeding is not arbitration after previously attempting to confirm the appraisal award in the Superior Court under that same theory. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Superior Court.
ZALMA OPINION
The New York Standard Fire Insurance Policy has been the foundation for insurance policies insuring against the risk of lost to real or personal property and, followed and adopted across the country. It, and almost all property policies, contain an appraisal clause as a prompt means of conflict resolution. In this case, one of the appraisers had an assignment of the insured’s claims against the insurer and was interested in the result of the appraisal. The Supreme Court found that the appraisal is subject to New Hampshire’s Arbitration Act as an arbitration and affirmed the Superior Court because of the plaintiff’s appraiser’s interest in the proceeds.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Applicant for Insurance is Obligated to Advise Insurer in Material Changes After Application Was Signed
Post number 5371
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/physicians-malpractice-insurance-available-when-zalma-esq-cfe-fmpxc and https://zalma.com/blog.
Doctor Criminally Charged and License Suspended After Application Signed had Policy Rescinded for Failure to Advise Insurer of Change
In Xiang (Sean) Yuan, M.D. v. Positive Physicians Insurance Company, No. 1821 EDA 2025, No. J-A08033-26, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (May 29, 2026) Dr. Xiang (Sean) Yuan, a physician, sought renewal of his professional liability insurance policy with Positive Physicians Insurance Company (PPIC) in June 2020 and again in May 2021.
In the June 2020 renewal application, he answered “no” to questions asking whether he knew of any circumstances that might lead to a professional liability claim.
Two days after signing the 2020 renewal application, Dr. Yuan was charged with 36 criminal offenses, and...
Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action
Post number 5370
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action
In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.
The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.
FACTS
However, although a summons ...
Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action
Post number 5370
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action
In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.
The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.
FACTS
However, although a summons ...
