The court found that neither party met its burden of proof, as the insurer did not establish that two of three appraisers adopted umpire's finding that a cosmetic-damage exclusion applied and, in any event, that was a liability finding that the panel had no authority to make; however, the insured did not establish that the insurer was liable for a claim under the policy and violated the Prompt Payment of Claims Act because the insurer's invoking of the appraisal process and the appraisal award itself did not establish the insurer's liability as a matter of law.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login