Cunningham v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 December 2022
• Docket Number: 6:21-cv-00264-MK
• Parties: GLEN CUNNINGHAM and NICOLE GREGORY Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

GLEN CUNNINGHAM and NICOLE GREGORY Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY Defendant

No. 6:21-cv-00264-MK

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division

December 27, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (HE / HIM) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiffs Glen Cunningham and Nicole Gregory bring this action alleging claims arising from an insurance policy dispute with Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”). Compl., ECF No. 1. State Farm moved for summary judgment. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 25 (“Def.'s Mot.”). Plaintiffs opposed that motion. Pls.' Response, ECF No. 35. All Parties consented to jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 42. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part State Farm's motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs reside in Oregon. Compl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 1. Their property includes a dwelling with wooden decks, a shed, a loafing shed, a horse arena, a greenhouse, and a carport. Plummer Decl. 1-2, ECF No. 27. On March 8, 2019, a snowstorm caused damage to Plaintiffs' dwelling

1

and dwelling extensions. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs initiated an insurance claim with the Defendant, their insurance provider, State Farm. Compl. ¶ 11. State Farm accepted the claim. Id. Plaintiffs' policy provides separate coverage limits for a dwelling and dwelling extensions. Plummer Decl. Ex. 101, ECF No. 27 (the “Policy”). Plaintiffs concede that State farm paid the policy limit for the dwelling extensions. Pls.' Response 3, ECF No. 35. State Farm's payments for the dwelling extensions are not in dispute. Id. at 12.

Initially, Plaintiffs hired a contractor to make repairs and replacements to the dwelling and dwelling extensions. Plummer Decl. Ex. 106, ECF No. 27. The contractor also subcontracted some of the work to other companies. Id. The contractor and subcontractors performed faulty repairs. Id. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the contractor and one of its subcontractors for “faulty workmanship, faulty repairs, inadequate supervision, improper coordination, improper or defective materials, failure to properly inspect, improper design, inadequate materials, and/ or noncompliance with applicable building codes.” Id. This case has since been settled and is not part of this litigation. Pls.' Response 3, ECF No. 35.

Plaintiffs and State Farm disagreed about the value of Plaintiffs' property damage claim. Plummer Decl. 3, ECF No. 27. Plaintiffs' policy contained a provision which stated:

“Appraisal. If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, both parties may agree to an appraisal of the loss and to be bound by the results of that appraisal. If both parties so agree, then each shall select a competent disinterested appraiser.... The two appraisers shall then select a competent, impartial umpire. If the two appraisers are unable to agree upon an umpire . . .either may ask a judge of a court of record in the state where the residence premises is located to select an umpire. The appraisers shall then set the amount of the loss. If the appraisers submit a written report of an agreement to us, the amount agreed upon shall be the amount of the loss. If the appraisers fail to agree within a reasonable time, they shall submit their differences to the umpire. Written agreement signed by any two of these three shall set the amount of the loss. Each appraiser shall be paid by the party selecting that appraiser. Other expenses of the appraisal and the compensation of the umpire shall be paid equally by you and us.”

2

The Policy 17, ECF No. 27. Pursuant to that provision, Plaintiffs requested an appraisal. Plummer Decl. Ex. 102, ECF No. 27. State Farm agreed to participate in the appraisal process. Id. at Ex. 103. Plaintiffs and State Farm chose their appraisers. Plummer Decl. Ex. 4, ECF No. 27 (“Appraisal Award”). Those appraisers agreed upon an “Umpire.” Id. The appraisers reached agreement and valued the loss as follows:

Replacement Cost Value	Actual Cash Value
Repairs to dwelling	$317,609.68	$233,881.82
Dwelling extension	$183,911.39	$135,428.90

Id. (cleaned up; formatted table). The actual cash value is the “value of the damaged part of the property at the time of loss, calculated as the estimated cost to repair or replace such property, less a deduction to account...