Appraisal Request by Insured Deemed Timely

    The Rhode Island Supreme Court found that the insured’s request for appraisal was timely after it was renewed several years after the loss. Romen v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2023 R.I. LEXIS 46 (R.I. May 3, 2023). 

    The insureds suffered  a loss due to ice and flood on February 10, 2010. A claim for the loss was submitted to Allstate, who made a partial payment. Although the parties agreed the loss was covered by the policy, there was disagreement on the extent of the loss and the cost of remediation. 

    The policy provided for an appraisal if the parties could not agree on the amount of the loss. The insureds initially sought to invoke the appraisal provision within the two-year window provided in the policy. Allstate refused to proceed to appraisal because it believed there were mixed issues of valuation and coverage. The insureds then filed their first action against Allstate for breach of contract.

    Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the policy required that the dispute be resolved by appraisal and not litigation. At the hearing on the motion, the parties agreed that appraisal was the proper forum for resolution of the dispute. The trial court granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment “without prejudice” and assured the insureds that if the appraisal process failed, they could press their case at a later date. At this point, two years had already passed from the date of the loss. 

    More that four years later, on March 7, 2017, the insureds renewed their request for an appraisal. Allstate refused, asserting that the demand for appraisal was not timely filed. Allstate argued that the second demand for appraisal was subject to the same two=year limitation period contained in the policy, which had long since passed. 

    The insureds filed a second lawsuit. The trial court granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment. The insureds appealed.

    The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed. Because the two-year limitation period would have ended February 5, 2012, the insureds’ original demand for appraisal and the initial action brought in 2011 were timely, as they fell within the requisite limitation period. Neither was time-barred, and the clock did not begin to run again. Further, the first grant of summary judgment was “without prejudice,” giving the understanding that the claim would undergo appraisal.