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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
