Opinion ID: 2167431
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is this a causation dispute?

Text: First, the record does not prove that the dispute here is about causation. In its motion for summary judgment, State Farm asserted that the only shingles on Johnson's roof that were actually damaged by hail were the shingles on the ridge of her roof. A dispute about how many shingles were damaged and needed replacing is surely a question for the appraisers. If the parties must agree on precisely which shingles have been damaged before there can be an appraisal, appraisals would hardly be necessary. What's more, either party could avoid appraisal by simply picking a few extras. The cost of replacing shingles (or anything else) is a function of both price and number ; appraisers must factor in both shingle prices and shingle numbers to decide the amount of loss. To the extent the parties disagree which shingles needed replacing, that dispute would fall within the scope of appraisal. On appeal, State Farm emphasizes it is disputing not just which shingles were damaged, but which were damaged by hail. But nothing in the summary judgment record establishes Johnson's roof was damaged by anything else. In State Farm's denial letter, its summary judgment motion, and even its briefs in this Court, there is neither evidence nor even a hint about what else caused the damage. The trial court could not conclude this was a causation dispute just because State Farm claimed it was. Nor does the record conclusively establish that the parties' dispute is solely about how much of the roof was damaged rather than how much needs to be replaced. Sometimes it may be unreasonable or even impossible to repair one part of a roof without replacing the whole. [26] The policy provides that State Farm will pay reasonable and necessary costs to repair or replace damaged property, and repair or replacement is an amount of loss question for the appraisers. [27] On this record, the trial court could not conclude as a matter of law that the parties' dispute was about causation rather than something else.