.

Case Law Alerts

Ohio Supreme Court Finds that Hidden Damage Discovered After Appraisal Was Completed and Repairs Commenced May Still Be Recoverable

One Church v. Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co., 2024-Ohio-1601

July 1, 2024

by David J. Fagnilli

The plaintiff was insured by the defendant insurance company for property damage to its building, which sustained wind damage in a storm on February 24, 2019. The defendant had an appraiser inspect the damage and issued a report and a check for $3,192.67 for repairs to 42 shingles and some interior locker room damage. The plaintiff then invoked the appraisal provision of the policy, and each party hired their own appraiser. After the appraisers inspected the property, they agreed that the damages were $313,271.98, and no umpire was needed or appointed. The defendant paid this amount less the $900 deductible. 

In October 2020, the plaintiff sought recovery of an additional $206,663.09 for damage not included in the Binding Appraisal Award. The plaintiff asserted that the damages were not discoverable until the repairs were commenced. The defendant rejected this claim, but made a payment of $39,089.52, for recoverable depreciation, and closed its file. 

The plaintiff sued, arguing that the damages were not included in the appraisal because they could not be discovered until after the repairs commenced. The plaintiff also alleged that it would not have needed to go to appraisal if the insurer’s initial estimate of damages had not been so unrealistically low. They further alleged bad faith. 

The defendant counterclaimed and then moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Binding Appraisal Award barred any subsequent claim. The trial court agreed, dismissing the claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the plaintiff’s claim for additional loss, that could not have been known to either party’s appraiser at the time of the initial appraisal, was not barred and could proceed at this early stage of the litigation. 

This opinion contains a good discussion of the application of the appraisal provision in a property insurance policy, a topic which is seldom the subject of appellate opinions. 


 

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.