Quade v. Secura Ins

8 Citing cases

  1. Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v. Second Chance Invs., LLC

    812 N.W.2d 194 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 7 times

    This court has explained that appraisal proceedings and the appraisers' task are distinct from judicial and arbitration proceedings, because appraisers β€œmake valuation determinations,” but are not empowered to decide questions of law. Quade v. Secura Ins., 792 N.W.2d 478, 483 (Minn.App.2011), review granted (Minn. Mar. 29, 2011). Minnesota precedent

  2. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Second Chance Invs., LLC

    A11-1145 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2012)

    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. Quade v. Secura Ins., 792 N.W.2d 478, 483 (Minn. App. 2011), review granted (Minn. Mar. 29, 2011). Minnesota precedent

  3. Quade v. Secura Ins.

    A10-0714 (Minn. Jun. 13, 2012)

    The court of appeals concluded that the resolution of the Quades' claim "requires the determination of legal questions concerning the meaning and application of contract clauses, causation, and liability"; therefore, the district court erred by ordering the parties to engage in the appraisal process. Quade v. Secura Ins., 792 N.W.2d 478, 483 (Minn. App. 2011). We granted Secura's petition for review on the issue of whether a party may demand appraisal when the parties fail to agree on the "amount of loss" even if there are remaining coverage questions.

  4. Quade v. Secura Ins.

    814 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2012)   Cited 82 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appraiser's evaluation of "amount of loss" requires consideration of causation

    The court of appeals concluded that the resolution of the Quades' claim β€œrequires the determination of legal questions concerning the meaning and application of contract clauses, causation, and liability”; therefore, the district court erred by ordering the parties to engage in the appraisal process. Quade v. Secura Ins., 792 N.W.2d 478, 483 (Minn.App.2011). We granted Secura's petition for review on the issue of whether a party may demand appraisal when the parties fail to agree on the β€œamount of loss” even if there are remaining coverage questions.

  5. Savanna Grove Coach Homeowners' Ass'n v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

    File No. 19-cv-1513 (ECT/TNL) (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2020)   Cited 6 times
    Finding an email sent to the insurer which sought to open an insurance claim for hail damage to the property was written notice of the claim

    Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Second Chance Invs., LLC, 812 N.W.2d 194, 199 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012), aff'd, 827 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 2013). "[A]ppraisal 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." Id., 812 N.W.2d at 199 (quoting Quade v. Secura Ins., 792 N.W.2d 478, 483 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011), rev'd on other grounds, 814 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2012)). In general, "appraisers have authority to decide the 'amount of loss' but may not construe the policy or decide whether the insurer should pay."

  6. Condominiums Place v. Secura Ins., Co.

    Civil No. 15-165 ADM/HB (D. Minn. Feb. 16, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Id. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the plaintiff's claim necessitated a determination on legal questions regarding "application of contract clauses, causation, and liability." Id. (quoting Quade v. Secura Ins., 792 N.W.2d 478, 483 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)). The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review on the issue of whether a party can obtain an appraisal when the parties disagree on the "amount of loss," even when coverage questions remain.

  7. Leblanc v. Travelers Home

    NO. CIV-10-00503-HE (W.D. Okla. Mar. 23, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    He argues that Massey does not control the result here and relies on authorities from other states concluding that in certain circumstances an umpire may make what are, at least in part, causation determinations.See, e.g.,Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,828 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2002);Kendall Lakes Town Homes Developers, Inc. v.Agricultural Excess and Surplus Lines Ins. Co.,916 So.2d 12 (Fl. Ct. App. 2005);Quade v. Secura Ins.,792 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. App. 2011);Johnson v. State Farm Lloyds,204 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. App. Div. 2006). As noted above, the Massey case is a decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court which addressed various issues as to the appraisal process and which appears to come closest (of the available Oklahoma authorities) to addressing the issues involved in this case.

  8. Hull v. Motorists Ins. Group

    2011 Ohio 2502 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    {ΒΆ 5} There is substantial debate over whether, and to what extent, appraisers and umpires may consider causation when determining the amount of loss to a structure. Compare State Farm Lloyds v. Johnson, 290 S.W.3d 886, 893 (Tex. 2009) ("[A]ny appraisal necessarily includes some causation element, because setting the `amount of loss' requires appraisers to decide between damages for which coverage is claimed from damage caused by everything else.") and State Farm Fire Cas. Co. v. Licea, 685 So. 2d 1285, 1288 (Fla. 1996) (explaining that an amount of loss assessment "necessarily includes determinations as to . . . whether or not the requirement for a repair or replacement was caused by a covered peril or a cause not covered, such as normal wear and tear[.]") with Quade v. Secura Ins., 792 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011) (concluding that, if an insurer alleges that an exclusion completely eliminates coverage, then that question "can be resolved only by analysis and application of the policy by the . . . court.") and Massey v. Farmers Ins. Group, 837 P.2d 880, 882 (Okla. 1992) ("[A]ppraisal provisions permit appraisers or umpires to determine one issue, to wit, the amount of damage to the property."). We do not need to join the debate at this time because we conclude that the trial court's causation instruction was outside of the scope of its authority under the parties' contract.