Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01677/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01677-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

6700 Arrowhead Owners Association,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-1677-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On August 9, 2012, 6700 Arrowhead Owners Association (“Plaintiff”) filed a 

motion to compel appraisal based on the appraisal provision in its contract with State 

Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“Defendant”). Doc. 5. Plaintiff also filed a motion to 

dismiss all fictitious parties named in the suit. Doc. 7. Defendant filed a response to the 

motion to compel appraisal (Doc. 18) and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 19).1

 For the 

reasons that follow the court will grant the motion to compel appraisal with additional 

instructions, and grant the motion to dismiss all fictitious parties. 

I. Factual Background. 

 Plaintiff is a condominium owners association for residential condominiums 

located at 17100 North 67th Avenue in Glendale, Arizona. Its property contains seven 

buildings and six carports. On October 5, 2010, a particularly strong hailstorm damaged 

 

1

 The request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 2:12-cv-01677-SMM Document 22 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the property and prompted Plaintiff’s insurance claim. Defendant dispatched an adjuster 

to the property and determined that portions of the property sustained covered hail 

damage. Defendant paid Plaintiff $238,522.82 for the losses that it deemed covered. 

Doc. 18 at 7. That amount did not include compensation for damage to bitumen roofs on 

all of the buildings on the property or damage to the north and west exterior elevations of 

all the buildings because Defendant determined that damage to those areas did not result 

from the hailstorm and therefore was not covered by the policy. Doc. 18 at 9. Defendant 

also refused to cover a 5% management fee that Plaintiff allegedly owes to a third-party 

property manager for overseeing the general contractor. Doc 18 at 8. Unsatisfied with 

that determination, Plaintiff attempted to invoke the appraisal clause in the insurance 

contract. Doc. 18-3 at 2. Defendant expressed willingness to submit the uncontested 

portions of the claim for appraisal, but was unwilling to submit all of Plaintiff’s claimed 

damages to an appraiser because it contested portions of the claim and believed 

submitting it would require the appraiser to go beyond the scope of the appraisal clause 

and make determinations about what damages were covered under the policy. Doc. 18-5 

at 2 (“If the association is contesting the amount of the loss for the damages addressed in 

State Farm’s repair estimate, please advise and we will immediately identify an appraiser. 

If, on the other hand, the association is disputing State Farm’s coverage determination 

regarding the modified Bitumen roofs, the north and west exterior elevations and your 

company’s 5% management fee, these items are simply not susceptible to resolution 

through appraisal.”). Plaintiff asserted that all of the claimed damages should be 

submitted for appraisal, and so on July 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed this suit for breach of 

contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in Maricopa County 

Superior Court. Doc. 18-6 at 2; Doc. 1-1 at 4. Defendant removed the case to this Court 

on August 7, 2012. Doc. 1. Plaintiff now moves to compel appraisal under the contract 

and pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4. 

II. Legal Standard.

 In Arizona, appraisal provisions are analogous to arbitration provisions and are 

Case 2:12-cv-01677-SMM Document 22 Filed 11/19/12 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

governed by arbitration principles. See Meineke v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 892 P.2d 

1365, 1369 (Ariz. App. 1994). The primary purpose of arbitration is to “obtain an 

inexpensive and speedy final disposition of the matter involved.” Gates v. Arizona 

Brewing Co., 95 P.2d 49, 50 (1939). A court is “very limited in its power to refuse a 

motion to compel arbitration.” Ori v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., No. CV-2005-

697-PHX-ROS, 2005 WL 3079044, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2005) (referring to 

arbitration principles when ordering appraisal). Moreover, when considering whether or 

not to compel arbitration, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues are to be 

resolved in favor or arbitration. Id. at *4. 

III. Discussion. 

 A. Motion to compel appraisal. 

Defendants contend that submitting the whole claim for appraisal will cause the 

appraiser to make determinations about the scope of coverage under the insurance policy 

rather than simply determining the amount of damage. This distinction is important, 

because in Arizona appraisers only determine the amount of damage and do not resolve 

questions of coverage. Hanson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 723 P.2d 101, 104 (Ariz. 

App. 1986). Furthermore, in Arizona “an arbitrator cannot resolve issues which go 

beyond the scope of the submission agreement.” Clarke v. ASARCO Inc., 601 P.2d 587, 

589 (Ariz. 1979). 

 In Carbonneau v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., No. 06-1853-PHX-DGC, 

2006 WL 3257724 (D. Ariz. Nov. 9, 2006), this Court resolved a similar dispute, 

involving a nearly identical appraisal clause, in favor of appraisal. In that case, both 

parties agreed that the insurance company was required to fix storm damage, but their 

competing appraisals differed as to whether it was necessary to replace the entire roof to 

repair the damage. Id. Another District of Arizona case considered the same issues and 

similarly found in favor of appraisal when the parties could not agree about the repairs 

necessary to remove the smoke odor from a house after a fire. Ori v. American Family 

Mutual Ins. Co., No. CV-2005-697-PHX-ROS, 2005 WL 3079044 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 

Case 2:12-cv-01677-SMM Document 22 Filed 11/19/12 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2005). 

 This case differs from Carbonneau and Ori because the parties are not contesting 

the manner and cost of repair for undisputed claims, but rather whether some damage is 

actually a result of the hailstorm and, consequently, whether it is covered at all. 

Defendant has identified particular areas of the buildings which it maintains were not 

damaged by the hailstorm. The question of whether any damage to those areas is covered 

under the policy lies beyond the scope of the appraisal clause. Defendant is entitled to 

contest the scope of coverage in this Court, but should the additional damages be found 

within the scope of policy, the appraisal clause entitles Plaintiff to a determination of the 

amount of damages through an appraisal process. 

 Defendant suggests the solution of submitting all of Plaintiff’s alleged damages 

for appraisal, while requiring the appraiser to itemize his report of damages such that 

Defendant will be able to challenge liability for the categories that it claims fall outside 

the scope of the policy. Plaintiff argues that this solution would “defeat the purpose” of 

appraisal because separate line items for disputed damages would make it easier for 

Defendant to litigate liability for those damages before a jury. Doc. 19 at 9. Plaintiff 

further argues that it “makes no sense to arbitrate the covered damages once before an 

appraisal panel, and then have to go back and re-argue the covered damages before a jury 

later.” Id. 

 The Court agrees with Defendant’s proposed solution. Should Defendant choose 

to litigate coverage issues after the appraisal – something it is entitled to do – an itemized 

appraisal preserves that option while still allowing Plaintiff to invoke its contractual right 

to an appraisal. This solution also accords with the case law’s deference toward allowing 

the appraisal process to proceed. 

B. Motion to dismiss fictitious parties. 

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss all fictitious parties is unopposed. The Court will 

dismiss John and Jane Does, I-X, ABC Corporations, I-X, and XYZ Partnerships I-X as 

Defendants. 

Case 2:12-cv-01677-SMM Document 22 Filed 11/19/12 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel appraisal (Doc. 5) is granted. The appraisal 

shall value all of Plaintiff’s alleged damages according to procedures outlined in the 

insurance policy, but the appraiser’s opinion shall be itemized to preserve Defendant’s 

ability to assert the coverage issues already raised by Defendant in the parties’ 

communications. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss all fictitious parties (Doc. 7) is granted. 

Dated this 19th day of November, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01677-SMM Document 22 Filed 11/19/12 Page 5 of 5