Appraisers do not have the authority to determine liability under an insurance policy. Mork v. Eureka–Sec. Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 230 Minn. 382, 384, 42 N.W.2d 33, 35 (1950); QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 393, 399 (Minn.App.2010); Johnson, 732 N.W.2d at 346. This court has explained that appraisal proceedings and the appraisers' task are distinct from judicial and arbitration proceedings, because appraisers “make valuation determinations,” but are not empowered to decide questions of law.
Appraisers do not have the authority to determine liability under an insurance policy. Mork v. Eureka-Sec. Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 230 Minn. 382, 384, 42 N.W.2d 33, 35 (1950); QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 393, 399 (Minn. App. 2010); Johnson, 732 N.W.2d at 346. This court has explained that appraisal proceedings and the appraisers' task are distinct from judicial and arbitration proceedings, because appraisers "make valuation determinations," but are not empowered to decide questions of law.
Interpretation of an insurance policy and its application to the facts are questions of law subject to de novo review. QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 393, 397 (Minn.App. 2010). "General principles of contract interpretation apply to insurance policies."
In determining the amount of loss suffered to property, depending upon the valuation measures provided in the insurance policy, appraisers are sometimes required to determine the availability of replacement materials. See QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 393, 396, 398 (Minn.Ct.App.2010). For example, with respect to roofs, if the shingles used on the original roof are no longer available, in determining the amount of loss, an appraisal panel will often need to consider the cost of obtaining other, similar shingles.
But based on precedent from the court of appeals’ holding that the Act applies to appraisals, Oliver proceeded under the Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act to seek preaward interest on the appraisal award. SeeQBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n , 778 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn. App. 2010) ("Appraisal decisions are subject to ... the arbitration statute."). The court of appeals also relied on this authority in its decision, stating that "appraisal decisions are subject to the [Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act]."
We review district court orders imposing sanctions for abuse of discretion and orders granting summary judgment and denying a motion to vacate an appraisal award de novo. STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre &Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 76-77 (Minn. 2002) (reviewing grant of summary judgment); Frontier Ins. Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp., 788 N.W.2d 917, 922 (Minn.App. 2010) (reviewing the dismissal of claims as a discovery sanction), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2010); QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 393, 398-99 (Minn.App. 2010) (reviewing de novo the authority of appraisal panel following an order granting summary judgment).
But "if the discovery would not assist the district court or change the result of the summary judgment motion, the district court does not abuse its discretion by granting the summary judgment motion without granting the continuance." QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 393, 400 (Minn.App. 2010).
Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01; accord Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 781 N.W.2d 36, 45 (Minn. App. 2010). An opposing party may seek to continue the motion in order to conduct additional discovery. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.06. Courts should liberally grant such continuances, particularly when the party against whom summary judgment is sought has had insufficient time to complete discovery. QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 393, 400 (Minn. App. 2010). But the district court may deny the continuance motion if the moving party seeks immaterial facts or has not been diligent in conducting discovery.
The Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act applies to the review and confirmation of appraisal awards in insurance disputes. QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n , 778 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) ; David A. Brooks Enters., Inc. v. First Sys. Agencies , 370 N.W.2d 434, 435 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) ; seeJohnson v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. , 732 N.W.2d 340, 346 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). Under the Act, if an award is ambiguous, the court may "submit the claim to the arbitrator to consider whether to modify or correct the award ... to clarify the award."
Courts traditionally looked to the Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act (“MUAA”) when reviewing appraisal awards in insurance disputes. Herll v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 879 F.3d 293, 295 (8th Cir. 2018) (citing QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn.Ct.App. 2010), among others).