Judges can determine the cause of damages, a federal appeals court said on Friday when it upheld a verdict against a Travelers Cos. Inc. device.
In June 2012, a hailstorm damaged three buildings owned by Englewood, Colorado-based BonBeck. Parker LLC and BonBeck HL LLC, according to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver BonBeck Parker, LLC; Bonbeck HL, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of America.
Travelers paid $ 34,200, the amount of damage it said was caused by the hailstorm.
A dispute arose between BonBeck and the Traveler unit. Travelers' damages such as how much damage was caused by the storm, in particular damage to the roofs of three buildings, and how much from nasty events such as wear and tear, deterioration and improper installation.
BonBeck then invoked a policy provision that allows either party to make an assessment, including the loss, to be determined by a three-person evaluation panel.
Travelers said it would only approve an evaluation on certain conditions, including that the panel would not be allowed to decide what caused the roof damage.
BonBeck refused the insurer's terms and the travelers filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in Denver, requesting an explanation that the policy prevented the evaluation panel from establishing a causal link. ues. BonBeck counterclaimed for breach of contract.
After the district court ruled that the appraisal provision authorized the panel to determine the cause of the loss, an estimate of the total repair cost for hail damage is estimated at approximately $ 21
The district court subsequently granted BonBeck a summary judgment on its breach of contract and held that there was no real dispute that travelers had violated the policy by failing to agree to a valuation. when BonBeck requested one.
The judgment was upheld by a unanimous Board of Appeal with three judges. The police plain text identifies disputes like this one, about "the size of the loss" as one of the issues that the parties can request an assessment of, the verdict says.
"And because we conclude that the Colorado Supreme Court, if faced with the question , would acknowledge that the usual meaning of the term "loss amount" includes causation, the district court interpreted the policy correctly to conclude that the panel could determine the cause of BonBeck's roof damage, "it stated, by confirming the lower court's judgment the insurer had violated the policy to allow the assessment to continue.
Lawyers in the case did not respond to a request for comment.