Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

Please Read Disclaimer.

  • THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP.
    The information provided on this site is informational, only. No legal advice is given and no attorney/client or other relationship is established or intended. We are independent of cross links and do not warrant their accuracy or applicability. We are located in Florida and comply with all ethical rules of the Florida Bar. Some States may require the word, "Advertisement," or similar words to appear. No professional relationship will be deemed to exist unless and until an agreement in writing for professional services has been signed by both client and Mr. Wall after appropriate interviews and conflict checks.

Google Search This Site

  • Google Search This Site!
    Google

    WWW
    insuranceclaimsissues.typepad.com

« Limited Relief for Chinese Drywall Damages Claims, Insurance Coverage Difficult. | Main | Catastrophes have Consequences. »

September 22, 2010

Comments

settlement dispute

Very interesting. As an Appraiser, I often encounter problems with the umpire appointment; the two Appraisers cannot agree on an individual to serve as Umpire.
The remedy is for either party to petition the local court of record to appoint an Umpire. Often, the issues are in result of the carrier's appointed Appraiser's attempt to only choose or agree to an Umpire who is a fellow insurance company advocate.... As a result, I often petition the courts to appoint an umpire. HOWEVER, in larger and more complex cases, I suggest to the insured that they should retain legal representation to petition the court. of course, this can be an unexpected and expensive cost to the insured.
Currently, I argue this cost as a "cost of the appraisal", to be shared equally by the parties. My question after reading your post and the related court opinions is this: can the insured successfully argue attorney fees for petitioning the court?

DIGITORY SOLUTIONS INC.
WWW.DIGITORYSOLUTIONS.NET

Phillip Crimaldi

This is an interesting review and article about the appraisal clause.

Upon review, I agree that the reversal on the multiplier for attorney fees was relevant to the case law.

I was surprised to learn that some insurers bind themselves to making payment on appraisal awards in a certain amount of time.

Too many policy framers fail to realize the variables their claim departments are exposed to. Applying a time limit for appraisal payments not only safeguards the insurer against bad faith and other litigation, but it applies a gentle pressure on claim representatives to keep a close eye on their post-award appraisals. All to often claims can take months to reach the appraisal process. These claims can easily end up on the back burner of a claim department and the limit helps those departments.

This is a great site and very informative.

The comments to this entry are closed.