Udom et al v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Filing 23

ORDER The Court ORDERS that: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Appraisal (Doc. # 9 ) is GRANTED. 2. Defendant is ORDERED to proceed with the appraisal process as set forth in the Policy. The appraisals should separately calcul ate and identify disputed costsincluding damaged property as well as undamaged property whose replacement Plaintiffs may claim is necessary for appearance purposesso that the Court can either include or exclude them once it has determined whether the policy provides coverage for them. 3. This litigation is STAYED until a full appraisal occurs. The parties shall jointly file a short, one-page status report every thirty days until this appraisal is complete. Upon its completion, the parties shall promptly notify the Court as to whether any live dispute remains in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 6/4/2024. (acw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
LAWRENCE UDOM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:23-cv-126

District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

ORDER
This case is currently before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Appraisal (Doc.
#9); Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Memorandum Contra Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel Appraisal (Doc. #10); Plaintiffs’ Reply (Doc. #11); Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider
Motion to Compel Appraisal and Stay Counts Two and Three of Complaint (Doc. #17);
Defendant’s Memorandum Contra Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Appraisal (Doc. #18); Plaintiff’s
Reply (Doc. #19); Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum (Doc. #21); and Defendant’s
Supplemental Brief (Doc. #22).
District Judge Michael J. Newman previously denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Appraisal because the motion was premature. (Doc. #12). Thereafter, Judge Newman granted
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Motion to Compel Appraisal and Stay Counts Two and Three of
Complaint and referred Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Appraisal to the undersigned. (Doc. #20).
On April 12, 2024, the undersigned held a teleconference regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion with
the parties. (Apr. 12, 2024 Minute Entry). During the teleconference, the undersigned ordered the
parties to file supplemental memoranda regarding the nature of damage to the roof. Id.

I.

BACKGROUND

In June 2022, a storm with high winds and heavy hail damaged Plaintiffs’ roof. (Doc. #9,
PageID #85-86). Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a claim with Defendant State Farm under their
Homeowners Policy (“the Policy”). Id. at 86. After inspecting the roof, Defendant found that
there were 13 damaged shingles out of the approximately 1,980 shingles on Plaintiffs’ roof. (Doc.
#10, PageID #116).

Defendant estimated that replacement of those shingles would cost

approximately $1,956.82, which was less than Plaintiffs’ deductible. Id.; (Doc. #9, PageID #86).
Plaintiffs, believing that the storm caused significantly more damage than found by
Defendant, retained Equitable Appraisal & Consulting, LLC (“Equitable”) to assess the repairs
necessary to properly restore their residence. (Doc. #9, PageID #86). Equitable determined that
the cost of the necessary repairs totaled $21,887.82. Id. After sending Equitable’s estimate to
Defendant and not hearing back, Plaintiffs issued a demand to Defendant for the parties to utilize
the appraisal process. Id. Defendant subsequently denied Plaintiffs’ request, asserting that the
“amount of loss” to be determined by appraisal included only the pricing of the repairs Defendant
deemed were covered, not the damages which Plaintiffs, relying on the Equitable estimate,
determined had occurred. Id.
Under the appraisal language in Plaintiffs’ State Farm Homeowners Policy, if the parties
“fail to agree on the amount of loss, either party can demand that the amount of the loss be set by
appraisal.” (Doc. #4-1, PageID #72). However, the Policy does not define “amount of loss.”
Plaintiffs contend that the parties disagree on the “amount of loss” and, therefore, request that the
Court order appraisal as set forth by the Policy. (Doc. #9, PageID #90).

2

II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

As one court has observed, “separating coverage issues from loss issues is not a simple
task.” Westview Vill. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 1:22-cv-0549, 2022 WL 3584263, at *2
(N.D. Ohio Aug. 22, 2022) (cleaned up). Plaintiffs and Defendant each cite extensive caselaw in
support of their positions. Notably, both parties cite a recent decision of this Court, Cinnamon
Ridge Condo. Ass’n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 3:22-CV-118, Doc. #11 (S.D. Ohio 2023),
in which the undersigned Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to conduct an appraisal and to
“separately calculate and identify disputed costs – including damaged property as well as
undamaged property whose replacement Plaintiff may claim i[s] necessary for appearance
purposes – so that the Court can either include or exclude them once it has determined whether the
policy provides coverage for them.” Id. at 315.
However, Plaintiffs assert that the language from the Cinnamon Ridge Order requiring the
appraisers to separately calculate and identify disputed costs is not applicable in this case because,
unlike the condominiums in Cinnamon Ridge, their home is a single-family residence subject to
the Ohio Residential Code.1 (Doc. #17, PageID #153); (Doc. #9, PageID #89) (citing O.A.C.
3901-1-54(I)(1)(b); O.A.C. 4101:8-1-01, sec. 904.2). Plaintiffs note that they added “Option OL”
to the Policy, which “applies to the costs of compliance with existing ordinances and/or law, up to
$52,100.00.” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, according to Plaintiffs, to comply with Ohio Residential
Code and the terms of the applicable Policy, this Court should “impose the appraisal process,

1

Plaintiffs indicate that they seek “a ruling identical to that recently issued by Judge Edmund [A.] Sargus, Jr.” in
Stonebridge at Golf Village Squares Condominium Ass’n v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 2022 WL 7178548 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 22,
2022). (Doc. #17, PageID #153). In that case, the parties had “a disagreement as to what damage, specifically, that
storm caused.” Stonebridge, 2022 WL 7178548, *3. Notably, however, the plaintiff in Stonebridge, like the plaintiff
in Cinnamon Ridge, was a condominium association.

3

determine the cost of repairs, and further determine any costs incurred by replacing undamaged
roofing to match the replacement roofing, up to $52,100.00.” Id. at 90.
Defendant disagrees, asserting that the language in Cinnamon Ridge is applicable to this
case. (Doc. #10, PageID #117). Defendant explains:
Whether there are building code requirements that may mandate
certain repairs in conjunction with repair of the damages is a legal
question for the Court, interpreting state law. If there are such codemandated repairs, then the next question is whether such repairs are
covered under the policy. This is a coverage question, also a legal
question for the Court.
Id.
Similarly to this case, in Reserves at Beavercreek Condo. Ass’n v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Co., the parties agreed that repair of the damage to the plaintiff’s roofs would require replacement
of some roof tiles but disagreed about the extent of that replacement. 2023 WL 9183683 (S.D.
Ohio Dec. 15, 2023). Though the plaintiff asserted that “whether the proposed repairs create a
‘reasonably matching appearance’ is a factual question for the appraiser,” the defendant argued
that whether it is “required to ‘provide coverage for the replacement of the undamaged portions of
the roof for purposes of appearance’” is a legal issue to be resolved by the Court. Id. at *1. In
granting the motion to compel appraisal, Magistrate Judge Gentry adopted the language from
Cinnamon Ridge. Id. at *2.
The undersigned finds that the Order from Cinnamon Ridge is appropriate under the
circumstances of this case. Such an appraisal will give the Court the benefit of a well-developed
factual record when it rules on the merits of the claims and defenses in this case, assuming that
such a ruling is still necessary after the appraisal has been completed.

4

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Court ORDERS that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Appraisal (Doc. #9) is GRANTED.

2.

Defendant is ORDERED to proceed with the appraisal process as
set forth in the Policy. The appraisals should separately calculate
and identify disputed costs—including damaged property as well as
undamaged property whose replacement Plaintiffs may claim is
necessary for appearance purposes—so that the Court can either
include or exclude them once it has determined whether the policy
provides coverage for them.

3.

This litigation is STAYED until a full appraisal occurs. The parties
shall jointly file a short, one-page status report every thirty days until
this appraisal is complete. Upon its completion, the parties shall
promptly notify the Court as to whether any live dispute remains in
this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

June 4, 2024

5