United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
THE WINDRIDGE OF NAPERVILLE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association alleges in
this diversity suit that its insurance policy with
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“PIIC”)
entitles it to an independent appraisal to value certain
storm damage sustained by one of its buildings. Doc. 19.
Windridge has moved to compel an appraisal. Doc. 25. The
motion is granted in part and denied in part.
20, 2014, a hail storm damaged one of Windridge's
buildings. Doc. 19 at ¶ 5. Windridge holds an insurance
policy issued by PIIC covering damage to the building.
Id. at ¶ 6.
policy's “Appraisal” provision states:
If we and you disagree on the value of the property or the
amount of “loss”, either may make written demand
for an appraisal of the “loss”. In this event,
each party will select a competent and impartial appraiser.
The two appraisers will select an umpire. If they cannot
agree, 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.
Id. at ¶ 9.
Windridge submitted a claim, PIIC paid $2, 111, 717.96 for
losses it conceded to be within the policy's scope. Doc.
34-2 at 2. Windridge believes that its losses are greater.
First, although the storm directly damaged only the
building's south and west sides, Windridge seeks payment
to repair the north and east sides, so that all four sides
will match. Doc. 34-1 at 3; Doc. 34-2 at 3. Second, Windridge
seeks reimbursement for the overhead and profit component of
the bills submitted by its contractor. Doc. 34-1 at 3-4.
Third, Windridge seeks payment for repairs made to the
building's roof. Doc. 35 at 5.
demanded an appraisal to resolve those disputes. Doc. 34-1 at
3. PIIC refused to appoint an appraiser or to engage in the
appraisal process. Doc. 34-1 at 3-4.
Whether Appraisal is Appropriate on the Three Disputed
The Building's North and East Sides
storm physically damaged the building's south and west
sides, requiring their repair. Windridge claims that although
the north and east sides were not physically
damaged, they should be repaired as well to ensure an
aesthetic match with the newly repaired south and west sides.
Windridge argues that this dispute presents a question for
the appraisal panel, which can determine whether the
aesthetic mismatch is so significant as to constitute
“damage” and, if so, assess a loss amount. PIIC
responds that this is a question of coverage, not loss
amount, and thus inappropriate for appraisal. PIIC is
noted, the policy states that if “[PIIC] and
[Windridge] disagree on the value of the property or
the amount of ‘loss', either may make
written demand for an appraisal of the
‘loss'.” Doc. 28-1 at 17 (emphasis added).
The policy defines “loss” as “accidental
loss or damage.” Id. at 26. The parties
dispute whether PIIC must pay to repair the two sides of the
building that the storm did not physically damage. The sole
question is one of coverage: whether the policy covers ...