Appellant insurer sought review of an order from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which denied, without prejudice, its motion to compel appraisal of the loss to respondent insured’s home and personal property from a fire.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains member managed vs manager managed
Overview
The insured’s open policy provided that the insurer would pay actual cash value or the replacement cost of lost or damaged personal property. In valuing the destroyed items, the insurer applied a blanket depreciation schedule to certain categories of property, based on the age of the item without regard to its condition. Asserting that this method resulted in excessive depreciation, the insured sought declaratory relief as to whether the insurer’s schedule violated Ins. Code, § 2051, subd. (b), and various regulations. The court held that appraisal was properly deferred until after the trial court ruled on the contractual and statutory interpretation issues presented in the insured’s Code Civ. Proc., § 1060, complaint for declaratory relief. These issues were not encompassed within the appraisal process articulated in Ins. Code, § 2071, or the policy and could not be decided by the appraisers. The § 2071 appraisal procedure did not limit recourse to other remedies, as stated in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, § 2695.9, subd. (e). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding declaratory relief a proper alternative remedy under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1061, 1062.
Outcome
The court affirmed the order.