A court of the Northern District of Texas granted an insured's motion to dismiss an insurer's action to appoint an umpire, holding that an action to appoint an umpire differs from an action to appoint an arbitrator because arbitration encompasses the entire controversy beyond merely setting the amount of loss and that the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met where the insurer has failed to either allege facts or provide differing estimates from the appraisal panel such that the court would be able to infer that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login