Darmer v. Jenkins-Jones
- John Tunheim
- 0:17-cv-04309
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
In Darmer v. State Farm, Judge Tunheim denied appraisal because disputed facts remained about Darmer’s compliance with the policy’s information duties.
Steven Darmer and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; the order denied Darmer’s request to compel appraisal but did not state that it resolved all claims in the action.
What happened
Steven Darmer sought to force State Farm Fire and Casualty Company to use an appraisal process to determine the amount of damage from a fire at his residence. He argued that appraisal was required by Minnesota law and his insurance policy.
The court concluded that Darmer had to reasonably provide information needed to value his loss before demanding appraisal. The parties presented conflicting evidence about whether he supplied required documents and responded to State Farm’s requests, so the court could not decide that issue as a matter of law.
Judge Tunheim overruled Darmer’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in full, and denied Darmer’s Motion to Compel Appraisal.
The detailed version
- Darmer v. Jenkins-Jones · No. 0:17-cv-04309
- John Tunheim
- July 6, 2018
Background
A fire damaged Darmer’s residence in November 2016. Darmer submitted insurance claims to State Farm and later demanded appraisal under his homeowners-insurance policy. The policy allowed either side to demand appraisal if the parties failed to agree on the amount of loss, but it also required the insured to provide information after a loss, including an inventory, supporting records, and a sworn proof of loss.
Darmer initially claimed a total loss of $920,499.20 and later submitted a revised proof of loss claiming $2,950,851.04. State Farm said Darmer had not provided required personal-property inventories and other supporting documents. State Farm also requested financial records and an examination under oath. The parties disputed whether Darmer adequately responded to those requests.
Motion and Arguments
Darmer brought the action seeking an order compelling appraisal and moved to compel that process. He argued that appraisal was available under Minnesota’s standard fire-insurance statute and under the policy. He also argued that State Farm had waived its right to challenge the amount of loss by refusing to participate in appraisal.
The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion. Darmer objected, and the district court independently reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation. The court treated the motion as one for partial summary judgment, meaning a request for judgment without a trial when no genuine dispute over an important fact exists.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected Darmer’s statutory theory. It held that the policy complied with Minnesota’s standard fire-insurance requirements and that the statute did not provide a separate cause of action to compel appraisal in these circumstances. The court therefore analyzed the issue as a breach-of-contract question under the policy.
The court held that the policy required Darmer to reasonably comply with his duties after loss before he could demand appraisal. State Farm needed enough information to independently value the claimed loss before there could be a disagreement about its amount. The court identified conflicting evidence about whether Darmer provided responsive documentation and satisfied State Farm’s reasonable requests. It noted, among other things, evidence that some documents were irrelevant, that the reported value of a scooter differed substantially from its purchase price, and that Darmer reported a different loss amount to the Internal Revenue Service than to State Farm.
Because a genuine dispute of material fact remained about Darmer’s compliance with the policy, the court could not grant summary judgment in his favor. The court also declined to resolve the waiver issue while that factual dispute remained.
Disposition
The court overruled Darmer’s objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, and denied Darmer’s Motion to Compel Appraisal.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.