The court found that, despite the parties previously claiming that appraisal would not be needed, the insured was legally entitled to engage in the appraisal process. The insurer's claim that the vacancy provision in its policy precluded coverage was not a basis to preclude appraisal, as that would be the proper subject of a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, not a response to a motion to compel appraisal.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login