California property insurance coverage and public adjusters know higher than that disputes over “quantity of loss” hardly ever journey alone. They arrive hand in hand with causation fights, protection questions, and a wholesome dose of creativity from each side. A latest federal courtroom resolution involving a Colorado development venture reveals simply how robust California’s pro-appraisal framework is, even when the loss occurred in one other state. 1
What shocked me studying by way of the briefs was how little consideration the events paid to the conflict-of-laws minefield. The coverage lined a Colorado venture, but the query of appraisal enforceability was determined below California regulation with out a lot resistance. Events coping with multi-state dangers may need to be aware of how essential and nuanced every state regulation is concerning how and what could be argued in an appraisal.
The dispute arose from a serious water-damage declare during which the events couldn’t agree on restore prices, claim-preparation bills, and, most hotly contested, the size and price of the delay in enterprise opening following the loss. The policyholder moved to compel appraisal, framing the disagreement precisely the best way California courts want: it is a measurement drawback, not a authorized drawback. Their argument well leaned on the Federal Arbitration Act and California Insurance coverage Code part 2071, each of which deal with appraisal as a species of arbitration. As soon as the disagreement considerations quantifying loss into {dollars}, days, and scope, California courts sometimes step apart and let appraisers do their job. The movement additionally used the insurer’s personal correspondence in opposition to it, highlighting repeated references to disputes over “the right way to measure” the delay relatively than whether or not delay was a protection subject in any respect.
The insurer countered with a narrower studying of the coverage. It argued that the appraisal clause ruled “LOSS,” outlined as unintended bodily harm, whereas the Delay in Opening Endorsement handled “DELAY,” a distinct creature fully. Within the insurer’s view, no appraisal may proceed till a courtroom dominated on whether or not the exclusionary endorsements utilized, as a result of delay has its personal exclusions and circumstances. That argument had floor enchantment, particularly given the insurer’s causation knowledgeable, who blamed the delay on development points relatively than water harm.
The insurer additionally pointed to the insured’s separate lawsuit in opposition to the venture’s architect, citing it as proof that the delay stemmed from design issues, not from the insured loss. These arguments supplied the courtroom a superbly respectable pathway to discovering that this was a protection struggle dressed up as a valuation struggle.
However the choose didn’t purchase it. Making use of California regulation, the courtroom held that appraisal provisions in first-party property insurance policies are enforceable arbitration agreements and that the one threshold questions are whether or not a legitimate provision exists and whether or not the dispute falls inside its scope. On each counts, the insurer fell brief.
The courtroom reasoned that disputes over restore prices, delay length, and claim-preparation bills are precisely the form of valuation disagreements that appraisal panels are designed to resolve. The existence of a protection dispute, whether or not the delay was attributable to the water harm or by development points, didn’t bar appraisal. Appraisers resolve quantities. Judges resolve protection. That division of labor is central in California, and the insurer’s effort to break down the 2 classes merely failed to steer the choose.
The courtroom additionally made clear that events don’t get discovery as a precondition to appraisal. California appraisal is casual by design. Permitting discovery calls for to halt the method would undermine the very effectivity for which the appraisal system was constructed. For claims professionals, this could function a reminder that California courts count on insurers to guage and doc causation early; ready to demand discovery after appraisal is triggered is not going to preserve the dispute out of appraisal. It’s a throwback to an period when the trial stands out as the first time a celebration will get to know all of the info.
Practitioners ought to keep in mind that there’s a particular California statute governing value determinations. These are totally different than the basic value determinations in different states. California value determinations are carried out like arbitrations, with attorneys offering proof to a panel. I mentioned this in Do Typical Insurance coverage Appraisers Observe California Code of Civil Process 1282.2.
Accordingly, what continues to intrigue me is how rapidly each side and the courtroom slid into California regulation regardless of a Colorado loss and Colorado-specific coverage endorsements. That is the form of state of affairs the place conflict-of-laws points needs to be flashing like hazard lights. But the insurer barely touched the subject. By conceding California regulation, or a minimum of not contesting it, they walked straight right into a jurisdiction the place appraisal is favored, protection disputes don’t block valuation, and judges are snug letting appraisers put numbers on disputed harm even when protection stays contested. If the insurer believed Colorado regulation supplied a narrower appraisal scope, that argument by no means confirmed up in any significant approach.
For adjusters, claims managers, and different insurance coverage professionals dealing with California claims, particularly complicated development losses, the lesson is simple. California courts compel appraisal broadly. They don’t tolerate procedural stalling. When the dispute entails intertwined questions of how a lot harm occurred, how lengthy the delays lasted, and which portion of the claimed bills are cheap, the percentages closely favor an appraisal continuing first, with protection questions sorted out later.
Thought For The Day
“In case you don’t know the place you’re going, you’ll find yourself someplace else.”
—Yogi Berra
1 K4 Dev v. Ace American Ins. Co., No. 8:25-cv-01540, 2025 WL 2995024 (C.D. Cal. Oct 6, 2025).