When buildings and structures are insured against loss by fire, and situated within this State, are totally destroyed by fire the company shall not be permitted to deny that the buildings or structures insured were worth at the time of the issuance of the policy the full value upon which the insurance is calculated and the measure of damages shall be the amount for which the buildings and structures were insured. * * * Franklin Fire Insurance Company v. Brewer, 173 Miss. 317, 159 So. 545, 160 So. 387 (1935), discussed in some detail what constitutes a total loss or destruction of a building by fire within the meaning of an insurance policy. The Court said:

Appraisers may rely upon their own inspection of the building. They are not required to hear evidence from the claimant or anyone else. See, e. g., Franklin Fire Insurance Co. v. Brewer, 1935, 173 Miss. 317, 159 So. 545; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Everfresh Food Co., 8 Cir. 1923, 294 F. 51, 55. Dr. Mitchell also complains that he did not get the appraisal promised in his policies because the appraisers did not itemize his loss.

The term "total loss" has been defined by various courts and does have a distinct legal meaning in Mississippi. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 159 So. 545, 548 (Miss. 1935). Rule 701 provides that lay witness testimony is limited "to those opinions or inferences rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.

Appraisers make their decision based on personal inspection of the damaged property, and appraisers are not required to hear evidence from other sources or conduct their work in a quasi-judicial manner. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 159 So.2d 545 (Miss. 1935). Both parties to an insurance contract containing an appraisal provision have a duty to act in good faith and to make a reasonable effort to comply with this provision of the contract.

Mississippi cases also hold that where the property is a total loss, Section 5693 applies. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Legg, Miss., 247 So.2d 812, and Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 173 Miss. 317, 159 So. 545, 160 So. 387.         Section 5693, originally enacted in 1894 provides as follows:

See Bennett v. Emmco Insurance Co., 215 So.2d 518, 521 (La. App. 1968); Stutes v. Bankers Fire Marine Insurance Co., 134 So.2d 136, 138 (La. App. 1961); Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Day, 487 So.2d 830, 835 (Miss. 1986); Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. Newman, 240 Miss. 10, 124 So.2d 686 (1960); Franklin Fire Insurance Co. v. Brewer, 173 Miss. 317, 159 So. 545 (1935); Scottish Union National Insurance Co. v. Warren Gee Lumber Co., 118 Miss. 740, 80 So. 9 (1918); Palatine Insurance Co. v. Nunn, 99 Miss. 493, 55 So. 44 (1911). From the evidence before us there can be no doubt that Scott's tractor was seriously damaged.

Having so found on disputed evidence that the property was a total loss, Section 5693, Mississippi Code of 1942 Annotated (1956) applies, and any provision of the policy requiring an appraisal was written out by this statute. Franklin Fire Insurance Company v. Brewer, 173 Miss. 317, 159 So. 545 (1935). The appellees filed a cross-assignment of error, complaining that the court erred (1) in finding that complainant Legg was bound by the proof of loss executed by her, and (2) in ruling that the appellees were not entitled to interest from the date of the loss.

The "valued policy" statute applies to, "that the insurers' liability is the fact amount of the policy". Franklin Fire Insurance Co. v. Brewer, 173 Miss. 317, 159 So. 545, 160 So. 387; Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Clark, 154 Miss. 418, 122 So. 551; Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Williams, 165 Miss. 233, 145 So. 94; Mississippi Fire Insurance Co. v. Planters Bank of Tunica, 138 Miss. 275, 103 So. 84; Mississippi Home Insurance Co. v. Barron, 91 Miss. 722, 45 So. 875; Western Assurance Co. v. Phelps, 77 Miss. 625, 27 So. 745; Yorkshire Insurance Co. v. Brewer, 175 Miss. 538, 166 So. 361; Sec. 5693, Code 1942. III.

I. The plaintiff failed entirely to prove the extent of damage to the house, and the defendant was thus entitled to a directed verdict. Davis v. Dantzler Lumber Co., 126 Miss. 812, 89 So. 148; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 173 Miss. 317, 159 So. 545; Hairston v. Montgomery, 102 Miss. 365, 59 So. 793; Hartford Accident Indemnity Co. v. Delta Pine Land Co. (Miss.), 188 So. 539; Hattiesburg Chero-Cola Bottling Co. v. Price, 141 Miss. 892, 106 So. 771, 143 Miss. 14, 108 So. 291; Hines v. Cole, 123 Miss. 254, 85 So. 199; McCoy v. Tolar, 128 Miss. 202, 90 So. 628; Scottish Union National Ins. Co. v. Warren Gee Lumber Co., 118 Miss. 740, 80 So. 9; The Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Mulholland, 226 Miss. 499, 84 So.2d 504; Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. Pope, 104 Miss. 339, 61 So. 450; Sec. 5693, Code 1942. II. The Court erred in any event in failing to submit to the jury the issue of "increase in hazard".

I. Parties to a contract may voluntarily in advance of any dispute agree to submit any dispute to arbitration as a condition precedent to filing suit with reference to the dispute. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Cowan County, Treasurer, 11 Miss. 453, 71 So. 746; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 173 Miss. 317, 159 So. 545; Horne v. State Building Comm., 122 Miss. 520, 76 So.2d 356; Jones v. Harris, 59 Miss. 214; Standard Millwork Supply Co. v. Mississippi Steel Iron Co., 205 Miss. 96, 38 So.2d 448; Sykes v. Royal Casualty Co., 111 Miss. 746, 72 So. 147, L.R.A. 1916F 1043; Secs. 279-297, Code 1942; 3 Am. Jur., Secs. 31, 33 pp. 856, 859; 6 C.J.S., Sec. 29 p. 169. White White, Gulfport, for appellees.