In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

No. 19-1731 

VILLAS AT WINDING RIDGE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:16-cv-3301 — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge. 

____________________ 

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 2019 

____________________ 

Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit 

Judges. 

ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In June 2013, a storm passed over 

Villas at Winding Ridge (“Winding Ridge”), a condominium 

complex located in Indiana, causing some minor damage 

from hail. Winding Ridge did not discover the damage until 

almost a year later when a contractor inspected the property 

to estimate the cost of replacing its aging roofs. Remembering 

its one-year State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State 
2 No. 19-1731 

Farm”) insurance policy, Winding Ridge submitted a claim to 

State Farm. Winding Ridge and State Farm inspected the 

property and exchanged estimates on the amount of the loss, 

but they could not reach an agreement. Winding Ridge subsequently demanded an appraisal under the insurance policy, 

and State Farm complied. After exchanging competing appraisals, the umpire upon whom both sides had agreed issued 

an award, which later became binding. 

Winding Ridge filed suit against State Farm alleging 

breach of contract, bad faith, and promissory estoppel. The 

parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The district 

court granted in part and denied in part Winding Ridge’s 

cross-motion for partial summary judgment and granted 

State Farm’s motion for summary judgment. Winding Ridge 

now appeals the district court’s ruling on State Farm’s motion 

for summary judgment. 

We affirm. We hold that the policy is unambiguous and 

enforceable. There is also no evidence that State Farm 

breached the policy or acted in bad faith when resolving the 

claim. 

I. Background 

Winding Ridge is a condominium complex with 32 residential buildings and a clubhouse located in Indianapolis, Indiana. State Farm insured Winding Ridge under a Residential 

Community Association Policy effective between July 1, 2012 

and July 1, 2013. The policy covered “accidental direct physical loss” to the covered property, unless the loss is subject to 

a policy exclusion. 

If the loss is covered under the policy, State Farm can 

choose one of the following loss payment options: 
No. 19-1731 3

(a) Pay the value of lost or damaged property; 

(b) Pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost 

or damaged property; 

(c) Take all or any part of the property at an 

agreed or appraised value; or 

(d) Repair, rebuild or replace the property with 

other property of like kind and quality. 

The policy states that State Farm will determine the value 

of the covered property as follows: 

(a) At replacement cost without deduction for 

depreciation, as of the time of loss, subject to 

the following: 

i. We will pay the cost to repair or replace, after application of the deductible and without deduction for depreciation, but not more than the least of 

the following amounts: 

... 

2) The cost to replace, on the 

described premises, the lost 

or damaged property with 

other property of comparable material, quality and 

used for the same purpose; 

.... 

If the parties disagree on the amount of the loss, either 

party may demand an appraisal. 

If we and you disagree on the value of the property or the amount of loss, either may make 
4 No. 19-1731 

written demand for an appraisal of the loss. In 

this event, each party will select a competent 

and impartial appraiser. Each party will notify 

the other of the selected appraiser’s identity 

within 20 days after receipt of the written demand for an appraisal. The two appraisers will 

select an umpire. If the appraisers cannot agree 

upon an umpire within 15 days, either may request that selection be made by a judge of a 

court having jurisdiction. The appraisers will 

state separately the value of the property and 

amount of loss. If they fail to agree, they will 

submit their differences to the umpire. A decision agreed to by any two will be binding. Each 

party will: 

(1) Pay its chosen appraiser; and 

(2) Bear the other expenses of the appraisal and 

umpire equally. 

If there is an appraisal, we will still retain our 

right to deny the claim. 

In 2014, Winding Ridge worked with Rocklane Company 

(“Rocklane”), a contractor, to assess its 9- to 16-year-old roofs. 

Rocklane inspected the roofs and identified hail damage to 7 

or 8 buildings’ roofs. Around April 18, 2014, Winding Ridge 

tendered the claim to State Farm, claiming a June 13, 2013 date 

of loss. 

Eric Meador, a State Farm claims adjuster, spoke to a 

Rocklane representative, who advised that approximately 12 

of the 32 residential buildings had sustained hail damage to 

their roofs. Meador inspected all 33 buildings at Winding 
No. 19-1731 5

Ridge in May 2014 and observed minimal hail damage. Specifically, he found “soft metal damage, hail damage to the soft 

metal condensers of some air conditioning units, damage to 

fascia, some unrelated wind damage that took place following 

the cancellation of the policy, mechanical damage from ice removal, damage to screens, prior mismatched shingle repairs 

and golf ball dents on the golf course side of complex.” On 

May 29, 2014, Meador prepared a replacement cost estimate 

for hail damage totaling $65,713.54, which included repairs to 

soft metal, some air conditioning condensers, screens, and 

gutters and downspouts. It did not include repairs to any 

roofing shingles. State Farm subsequently paid Winding 

Ridge for the estimated repairs less depreciation. 

Winding Ridge disagreed with State Farm’s estimate and 

hired Matthew Latham, a public adjuster at Crossroads 

Claims Consulting, to provide a competing estimate. Latham 

concluded that there was hail damage to all 33 buildings and 

estimated a replacement cost of $1,975,264. This estimate included full replacement for all shingles, decking, metal vents, 

flashing, caps, gutters and downspouts on all 33 buildings. 

Meador reviewed Latham’s estimate and agreed to reinspect the buildings. He reinspected them in April 2015 and 

hired Doug Brown, an engineer, to conduct a separate inspection. Brown drafted a report of his findings and concluded 

that “[t]he roofing shingles throughout the neighborhood had 

not been functionally damaged by hailstone impacts.” Brown 

also found that the areas identified by Latham “exhibited 

granule loss consistent with blistering and the normal aging 

of the shingles, and were not attributable to hailstone impacts.” Lastly, he identified hail damage to soft metals, 

screens, and some air-conditioning units. Meador provided 
6 No. 19-1731 

Latham with a copy of Brown’s report and confirmed that 

State Farm’s estimate included the full scope of damages covered by the insurance policy. 

On September 9, 2015, Winding Ridge demanded an appraisal under the policy, which State Farm accepted. In doing 

so, State Farm referred to the policy’s appraisal provision and 

informed Winding Ridge that “[a]ppraisal is a process by 

which the amount of loss, if any, may be determined. Appraisal does not resolve coverage disputes. In other words, it 

is not a process by which coverage is determined for a particular loss or item of damage.” 

Both parties complied with the policy’s appraisal provision. State Farm and Winding Ridge each hired independent 

appraisers Michael Scott and Garrett Kurtt, respectively, and 

they reinspected the buildings. Scott estimated $79,921.80 for 

repairs to all 33 buildings, but his estimate did not include full 

shingle replacement on any building. Kurtt estimated 

$676,824.07 for repairs including full shingle replacement on 

13 buildings. Kurtt did not claim full shingle replacement for 

any of the remaining buildings. 

Again, the parties could not agree on an estimate. The 

main disagreement between the parties was whether all shingles needed to be replaced on 13 buildings. Pursuant to the 

policy’s appraisal provision, the parties’ appraisers selected 

an independent umpire, Al Kalemba with Illiana Claims Services. Scott, Kurtt, and Kalemba inspected the property. On 

April 30, 2016, Kalemba issued a proposed award for (1) 20% 

repair allowance for roofing shingles on 13 buildings, (2) replacement costs for soft metal damage on all 33 buildings, and 

(3) replacement costs for roofing shingles around new turtle 

roof vents on all 33 buildings. Specifically, Kalemba found 
No. 19-1731 7

that “[t]he granule loss does not indicate hail damage. During 

the life of a shingle granules are constantly shedding from the 

mat as designed.” Kalemba’s proposed award totaled 

$154,391.77. 

Winding Ridge was dissatisfied with the proposed award. 

On May 20, 2016, Kurtt asked Kalemba to modify the award 

to cover full shingle replacement on 13 buildings. For the first 

time, Kurtt reported that the original shingles were discontinued, and any replacement shingles would not match the existing shingles. During the appraisal process, Winding Ridge 

had received a letter from shingle manufacturer GAF dated 

November 18, 2015, stating that the shingles on Winding 

Ridge’s roofs are no longer available, and “GAF does not have 

a direct replacement that is compatible in color or that would 

keep the roof uniformed [sic].” Winding Ridge failed to share 

this information with Kalemba or State Farm’s appraiser before Kalemba issued the proposed award. And Winding 

Ridge did not submit this issue as part of the disputed loss. 

Kalemba reviewed the additional information, but he did 

not amend the award. 

Our charge was to establish the existence of hail 

damage to the shingles which was in dispute. 

Per my findings clearly depicted on my award 

report there is very little if any hail damage to 

the shingles observed. I have allowed for approximated spot repairs based upon the minor 

damage observed.... 

As to the matching argument, I would again 

state that we are establishing the presence of 

damage to the shingles and I have allowed for 
8 No. 19-1731 

same as well as the replacement of shingles 

around the replacement of roof vents. In addition, there was evidence of prior patching of 

shingles on many of the roof’s [sic] inspected. 

The case law presented here is not applicable 

and matching issues are in the realm of policy 

coverage issues which are not a part of this appraisal process. 

Therefore, my original recommended award remains. 

Both Kalemba and Scott signed the award, making it binding, and State Farm issued payment to Winding Ridge. 

Winding Ridge filed suit against State Farm in Indiana 

state court, and State Farm removed the suit to federal court. 

The complaint alleges claims for breach of contract, bad faith, 

and promissory estoppel. At some point after Winding Ridge 

tendered the claim to State Farm, Winding Ridge independently took out a $1.5 million loan to replace the shingles 

on all 33 buildings. Winding Ridge now seeks damages for 

approximately $1.5 million plus the interest on the loan ($97 

per day) and prejudgment interest. 

Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district 

court granted in part and denied in part Winding Ridge’s 

cross-motion for partial summary judgment, granted State 

Farm’s motion for summary judgment, and denied as moot 

State Farm’s motion to preclude expert testimony. Winding 

Ridge now appeals the district court’s ruling on State Farm’s 

motion for summary judgment. 
No. 19-1731 9

II. Discussion 

We review the district court’s summary judgment ruling 

de novo and in the light most favorable to Winding Ridge. 

Peerless Network, Inc. v. MCI Commc’n Serv., Inc., 917 F.3d 538, 

545 (7th Cir. 2019). Summary judgment is appropriate when 

“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(a). 

A. Breach of Contract 

Winding Ridge asserts legal and factual challenges to the 

district court’s ruling. First, it argues that the appraisal provision is ambiguous and therefore is unenforceable. Second, 

Winding Ridge asserts that the award is not binding because 

the umpire improperly determined the scope of the loss rather than just the amount of the loss. Third, it claims that there 

are genuine issues of material fact that State Farm breached 

the insurance policy. 

Under Indiana law, courts give unambiguous contract 

terms their plain meaning. Vesuvius USA Corp. v. Am. Commercial Lines LLC, 910 F.3d 331, 333 (7th Cir. 2018). “‘Clear and 

unambiguous terms in a contract are deemed conclusive, and 

we will not construe an unambiguous contract or look to extrinsic evidence, but will merely apply the contractual provisions.’” Id. (quoting Brockmann v. Brockmann, 938 N.E.2d 831, 

834 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). 

Indiana courts have repeatedly enforced appraisal clauses 

in insurance contracts. See, e.g., Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. 

WE Pebble Point, 44 F. Supp. 3d 813, 817 (S.D. Ind. 2014); see 

also Shifrin v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 991 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1038 (S.D. 

Ind. 2014). And the resulting appraisal awards are binding 
10 No. 19-1731 

absent exceptional circumstances, which means manifest injustice, fraud, collusion, misfeasance, or unfairness. See Jupiter 

Aluminum Corp. v. Home Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 868, 872, 875 (7th 

Cir. 2000); FDL, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 135 F.3d 503, 505 (7th 

Cir. 1998); Atlas Const. Co., Inc. v. Indiana Ins. Co., Inc., 309 

N.E.2d 810, 813–14 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974) (“When, however, the 

award is uninfected with such unfairness or injustice, it is not 

to be set aside and replaced by the subjective judgment of a 

reviewing court.”). This is particularly true when the parties 

voluntarily submit to an appraisal under the policy. See Jupiter 

Aluminum Corp., 225 F.3d at 875; FDL, Inc., 135 F.3d at 505. 

We find that the policy’s appraisal provision is unambiguous. The policy states that, if the parties “disagree on the 

value of the property or the amount of loss, either may make 

written demand for an appraisal of the loss.” Winding Ridge 

and State Farm disagreed on the amount of loss, Winding 

Ridge demanded an appraisal, and State Farm accepted the 

demand. As required, both Winding Ridge and State Farm selected appraisers. The parties’ appraisers disputed how much 

hail damage Winding Ridge had sustained. Specifically, 

Winding Ridge claimed shingle replacements were needed 

for 13 buildings. Following the appraisal provision, the appraisers selected an independent umpire and presented their 

estimates to him. Kalemba resolved the dispute by awarding 

(1) 20% repair allowance for roofing shingles on 13 buildings, 

(2) replacement costs for soft metal damage on 33 buildings, 

and (3) replacement costs for roofing shingles around new 

turtle roof vents on 33 buildings. Both Kalemba and Scott 

signed the award, and the award became binding. 

In an attempt to set aside the award, Winding Ridge argues that the award is not binding because Kalemba 
No. 19-1731 11

mistakenly determined the scope of the loss. We disagree. 

First, Kalemba resolved the dispute that the parties presented 

to him: namely, the amount of hail damage to the roofing 

shingles on 13 buildings and to the soft metal on 33 buildings. 

Winding Ridge has not identified any exceptional circumstances such as unfairness, manifest injustice, fraud, collusion, or misfeasance that would warrant setting this award 

aside. See FDL, Inc., 135 F.3d at 505. Second, the mere presence 

of coverage disputes (like matching shingles) in addition to 

an amount of loss dispute does not negate an appraisal 

award. See Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 44 F. Supp. 3d at 818 

(“To hold otherwise would be to say that an appraisal is never 

in order unless there is only one conceivable cause of damage—for example, to insist that ‘appraisals can never assess 

hail damage unless a roof is brand new.’” (citation omitted)). 

Here Kalemba determined the value of the loss based on the 

disputed loss submitted by the parties’ appraisers and as required under the policy; he did not decide the coverage issues. 

Winding Ridge also claims there are genuine issues of material fact regarding State Farm’s purported breach that preclude summary judgment. To state a breach of contract claim, 

a plaintiff must allege the existence of a contract, defendant’s 

breach, and damages. See, e.g., Shifrin, 991 F. Supp. 2d at 1043; 

Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. C & J Real Estate, Inc., 996 N.E.2d 803, 

805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). There is no dispute that the insurance 

policy exists. The issue is whether State Farm breached that 

policy. Winding Ridge argues that State Farm breached the 

policy by (1) failing to pay for new roofs on all 33 buildings, 

(2) applying the appraisal award to the entire claim when it 

only resolved damage on 13 buildings, and (3) failing to 

amend the award to cover matching shingles on 13 buildings. 
12 No. 19-1731 

We conclude that none of these factors create an issue of material fact. 

State Farm did not breach the policy by declining to pay 

for new roofs on all 33 buildings. Winding Ridge’s own appraiser, Garrett Kurtt, found no hail damage to the roofing 

shingles on 20 buildings; his estimate only included full shingle replacements on 13 buildings. Both State Farm’s appraiser 

and the umpire disagreed with Kurtt’s estimate and found 

minimal hail damage on 13 buildings. The award compensated Winding Ridge for 20% shingle replacement on those 

buildings. The fact that Winding Ridge independently replaced the shingles on all 33 buildings for $1.5 million while 

its claim was pending does not obligate State Farm under the 

policy or mean State Farm breached the policy. 

Further, the appraisal award plainly resolved the entire 

claim, not just the damage to 13 buildings as Winding Ridge contends. The parties submitted the disputed loss to the umpire, 

and that disputed loss did not include the replacement of the 

shingles on all buildings. The umpire resolved the parties’ dispute. Specifically, the binding award has three parts. The first 

and big-ticket item was whether the hail damaged some or all 

the shingles on 13 buildings. The umpire testified that State 

Farm’s and Winding Ridge’s appraisers agreed that there was 

no shingle damage on the other 20 buildings. Neither Scott’s estimate nor Kurtt’s estimate provided for full roof replacement on 

all 33 buildings. Instead, Scott’s estimate did not include full 

shingle replacement on any building while Kurtt’s estimate included full shingle replacement on 13 buildings. The umpire determined that there was minor hail damage to the roofing shingles on 13 buildings and awarded 20% allowance to repair those 

shingles. Second, the award also included replacement costs for 

soft metal damage on all 33 buildings. Specifically, it provided 
No. 19-1731 13

$54,846.61 actual cash value for “roofing metals and elevation 

repairs” and noted that “the above line item reflects the York 

Appraisal estimated damage,” which itemized soft metal 

damage to the entire property. Lastly, the award covered the 

cost of replacement shingles around the new turtle roof vents 

on all 33 buildings.

Finally, Kalemba’s decision not to amend the proposed 

award for matching shingles does not create a genuine dispute of material fact. Winding Ridge’s matching shingles argument was untimely. It tendered the initial claim to State 

Farm in April 2014. The parties inspected the property several 

times before Winding Ridge demanded an appraisal. During 

the appraisal process, the appraisers and umpire inspected 

the property, and the umpire reached a proposed award on 

April 30, 2016. It was not until May 20, 2016 that Winding 

Ridge’s appraiser first reported that the shingle manufacturer 

discontinued the original shingles. Winding Ridge could have 

raised this issue on November 18, 2015, six months earlier, 

when it received a letter from the shingle manufacturer GAF 

stating that direct replacements are not available. It did not. 

To permit this kind of second guessing would only frustrate 

the purpose of a binding appraisal in the first place. See FDL, 

Inc., 135 F.3d at 505. 

Winding Ridge makes several, additional arguments as to 

why the district court’s ruling was improper. None of these 

have merit, but we briefly address each one in turn below. 

First, Winding Ridge argues that industry standards and 

State Farm’s policy guidelines require State Farm to cover the 

replacement cost for matching shingles on 13 buildings. These 

documents are extrinsic evidence, which we can consider 

only if the policy is ambiguous. See Vesuvius USA Corp., 910 
14 No. 19-1731 

F.3d at 333. Because the provision at issue is unambiguous, 

we decline Winding Ridge’s invitation to consider extrinsic 

evidence to interpret the provision. 

Second, Winding Ridge claims that, “but for” the hail 

storm, it would have had uniform roofs with matching shingles. All 33 roofs are therefore a covered loss under the policy 

that State Farm is obligated to repair. Winding Ridge forfeited 

this argument by failing to raise it before the district court. See 

Scheidler v. Indiana, 914 F.3d 535, 540, 544 (7th Cir. 2019) (“A 

party generally forfeits issues and arguments raised for the 

first time on appeal.”). 

Third, it also argues that two cases support its position 

that the policy term “comparable material” means a reasonable color match for the entire roof. These cases are factually 

distinguishable. In Erie Insurance Exchange v. Sams, the court 

held that the entire roof, cathedral ceiling, and exterior vinyl 

siding had sustained direct physical damage from the storm.

Erie Ins. Exch., v. Sams, 20 N.E.3d 182, 186, 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2014). There was also evidence that the house had a uniform 

appearance before the storm and that a mismatching roof 

slope and siding would devalue the home. Id. In Cedar Bluffs 

Townhome Condominium Association, the appraisal panel issued an award for total replacement of the siding panels. Cedar Bluff Townhome Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. 

Co., 857 N.W.2d 290, 292 (Minn. 2014). Here, the umpire concluded that only some of the shingles were damaged on some 

buildings. 

Lastly, Winding Ridge argues that replacing one shingle 

requires replacing all shingles and cites Gutkowski v. Oklahoma 

Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Company, 176 P.3d 1232, 1234 

(Okla. Civ. App. 2007). We disagree. In Gutkowski, there was 
No. 19-1731 15

evidence that replacing the top layer of damaged composition 

shingles would necessarily damage the underlying wooden 

shingles. Gutkowski, 176 P.3d at 1234. Here there is no evidence that replacing the damaged shingles would harm the 

undamaged shingles. We previously analyzed similar policy 

language and stated that “[i]f one shingle at the corner of a 

slate roof is damaged and no matching replacement shingle is 

available, a building owner would not be entitled to an entire 

new roof.” See Windridge of Naperville Condo. Ass’n v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., 932 F.3d 1035, 1042 (7th Cir. 2019). Winding 

Ridge does not present any meritorious arguments why we 

should find otherwise here. 

B. Bad Faith 

Winding Ridge argues that there is evidence that precludes summary judgment on the bad faith claim. First, the 

award was more than State Farm’s appraiser’s initial estimate. Second, State Farm’s handling of another claim suggests that State Farm handled the Winding Ridge claim in bad 

faith. 

Under Indiana law, insurers are required to deal in good 

faith with their insureds. See Erie Ins. Co., v. Hickman, 622 

N.E.2d 515, 518 (Ind. 1993). This obligation includes refraining from “(1) making an unfounded refusal to pay policy proceeds; (2) causing an unfounded delay in making payment; 

(3) deceiving the insured; and (4) exercising any unfair advantage to pressure an insured into a settlement of his claim.” 

Id. at 519. This does not create a new cause of action every 

time an insurer erroneously denies a claim. Id. at 520 (“That 

insurance companies may, in good faith, dispute claims, has 

long been the rule in Indiana.”). “To prove bad faith, the 

plaintiff must establish, with clear and convincing evidence, 
16 No. 19-1731 

that the insurer had knowledge that there was no legitimate 

basis for denying liability.” Freidline v. Shelby Ins. Co., 774 

N.E.2d 37, 40 (Ind. 2002). Plaintiffs are also required to prove 

an insurer’s “conscious wrongdoing” or “culpable mental 

state.” See Sexson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 61 F. App’x 267, 

271 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Colley v. Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. 

Grp., 691 N.E.2d 1259, 1261 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)). This is a high 

burden of proof. Inman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 981 

N.E.2d 1202, 1207 (Ind. 2012). 

We conclude that State Farm did not act in bad faith. There 

is no evidence that State Farm delayed payment to Winding 

Ridge, deceived Winding Ridge, or exercised an unfair advantage to pressure Winding Ridge to settle the claim. The 

only question is whether State Farm made an unfounded refusal to pay policy proceeds to Winding Ridge. It did not. Insurance companies may dispute claims in good faith. Hickman, 622 N.E.2d at 518. Winding Ridge submitted a claim for 

hail damage to State Farm. State Farm investigated the claim, 

reached a claim estimate, and issued payment to Winding 

Ridge. Winding Ridge disputed the claim estimate and demanded an appraisal under the policy terms. State Farm cooperated in the appraisal process by re-inspecting the property and presenting a claim estimate to the umpire and Winding Ridge’s appraiser. The umpire reached an award, which 

State Farm’s appraiser signed. State Farm subsequently paid 

Winding Ridge what it owed under the binding award. Winding Ridge has not shown any evidence, let alone clear and 

convincing evidence, that State Farm acted in bad faith. 

Nor is there any evidence that State Farm acted with a culpable state of mind. The mere fact that State Farm’s initial estimate was less than the award does not suggest culpability. 
No. 19-1731 17

At best, it may suggest that State Farm’s first inspection was 

inadequate. But this alone does not constitute bad faith. See 

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 405 F. Supp. 2d 948, 958 

(S.D. Ind. 2005). 

Winding Ridge argues that State Farm’s claims adjuster 

engaged in deceitful ignorance of hail damage to Winding 

Ridge’s roofs in retaliation for another claim called Briarstone. 

Briarstone is another condominium complex that tendered a 

claim for hail damage to State Farm. State Farm evaluated the 

claim and found no hail damage. The parties agreed to arbitrate the claim, but eventually settled the claim. Winding 

Ridge believes that State Farm was upset with the Briarstone 

settlement and that experience negatively influenced State 

Farm’s initial estimate of the Winding Ridge claim. The facts 

do not support Winding Ridge’s theory. Indeed, State Farm’s 

claims adjuster provided an initial estimate and submitted 

payment to Winding Ridge before Briarstone tendered its 

claim to State Farm on June 19, 2014. State Farm’s initial estimate therefore could not have been influenced by the Briarstone claim. 

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court.