Court Opinion

ID: 9822025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 08:40:09.550618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:00.070059
License: Public Domain

BEA, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate on the Neu-manns’ claim that Allstate breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
I think the district court erred, however, in determining that the retired judge was not qualified to serve as the Neumanns’ appraiser as a matter of law and therefore that the Neumanns were, not performing their obligations under the contract. The issue was not whether the Neumanns’ designated appraiser was qualified to express an opinion as an expert witness per Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which would be a preliminary issue to be resolved by the trial judge. Rather, the sole issue here was whether the retired judge’s qualification under the terms of the contract presents an issue of fact for the jury. The contract requires only that each party “will appoint and pay a qualified appraiser____ Each appraiser will state the actual cash value and the amount of loss.”
Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Neumanns, the non-movants, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the retired judge was a “qualified” appraiser, i.e., one capable of estimating the amount of damage to the Bentley. The word “qualified” means “having qualities or possessing accomplishments which fit one for a certain end, office, or function.” Oxford English Dictionary (2016 Oxford University Press). The retired judge declared that he has “vast experience with and [is] extremely knowledgeable in the adjudication and resolution of all types of disputes, including property damage claims.” He also declared that “[f]ollowing my agreement to serve as the appraiser ..., I invested a substantial number of hours in my role as an appraiser including reviewing the policy language, the various estimates of damage prepared by Allstate and Eli’s Body Shop, the location to which the vehicle .was towed, as well as correspondence between the parties as to the amount of the loss.” He also declared that “[a]s of mid-September 2012 ... I ... was ready to submit my evaluation as to the amount-of loss.”
Since the judge’s lack of qualification was the only ground given by the district court for rejecting the Neumanns’ breach of contract claim, I would reverse the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Allstate on this claim.