Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; January 7, 1988; Washington; State Appellate Court
Fred and Kim Bainter appealed the trial court's confirmation of an appraisal award and its refusal to let a jury decide certain factual issues. The case arose from a tree falling on their home on November 27, 1984, which led to their relocation and an insurance claim under their policy with United Pacific Insurance Company. Initially, a contractor estimated the damage at $73,635.82, but United Pacific sought a second opinion, resulting in a much lower estimate of $11,627.87. United Pacific tendered this amount, which the Bainters rejected. In September 1985, the appraisal clause of their policy was invoked due to a disagreement on the loss amount.
The Bainters appointed contractor Jack McHargue as their appraiser, while United Pacific selected Richard B. Hopp. Disagreements arose between the appraisers, leading to the appointment of attorney Thomas Cochran as umpire by the court. Hopp's appraisal was $13,824.53, and McHargue estimated $26,300. The final appraisal award set by Hopp and Cochran was $15,278.22 for property damage and $2,206.03 for living expenses due to uninhabitability. The Bainters contested this award as unfair and biased, demanding a jury trial on these issues.
The court allowed the Bainters 90 days for depositions to support their claims. After reviewing five depositions and the evidence, the court confirmed the appraisal award, stating it was reached objectively, professionally, and fairly.
The Bainters appeal, arguing they were wrongly denied a jury trial to assess the adequacy and fairness of an appraisal award. They assert a constitutional right to a jury trial under Article 1, Section 21 of the Washington State Constitution, which protects the right to a jury in civil cases that were triable at the constitution's adoption. Previous cases establish that actions involving legal issues, as opposed to equitable issues, should be tried by jury upon proper demand. The Bainters contend the trial court neglected these principles and improperly resolved factual issues, while United Pacific asserts that appraisal awards in insurance policies are generally conclusive regarding loss amounts.
However, if the insured questions the fairness of the appraisal process due to alleged bias or lack of impartiality, factual issues may warrant jury consideration. Historical cases demonstrate that courts have allowed jury trials in similar situations when substantial evidence of bias is presented. Yet, the Bainters did not provide evidence to substantiate their claims of bias or unfairness in the appraisal process, leading to the conclusion that the trial court correctly upheld the appraisal award under the established rule of its binding nature.
The trial court can determine factual issues as a matter of law when evidence is so clear that only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn, as established in Sweek v. Metropolitan Seattle and other cases. In this instance, the court found no evidence of unfairness, bias, or unethical conduct presented, leading to the conclusion that there was no error in the trial court's decision. The Bainters contested the adequacy of the award for living expenses under their policy, which covers costs for the shortest time necessary to repair or replace their property. Their disagreement with the insurer involved the factual determinations made by the umpire and appraiser. Since no unfairness was demonstrated, the court affirmed this portion of the award as conclusive regarding the amount of loss. The decision was upheld by judges Green and Munson, with reconsideration and Supreme Court review both denied. The appeal did not address the Bainters' Consumer Protection Act claim. During oral argument, it was noted that the bank had foreclosed on the Bainters' home, but neither party raised the foreclosure's impact on the claim. The court remarked on the costly and prolonged nature of the dispute resolution process, indicating concerns about the efficiency of such proceedings.
