A federal judge in Washington found that an insurer breached its contractual obligations by not timely paying an appraisal award to the couple for property damage to their home caused by a fire, and siding with the Bennetts only about their allegation that Homesite missed a 30-day deadline to pay losses.

However, the court also found that there were far too many significant factual disputes involving the remainder of the couple’s claims, which the judge said should be decided by a jury.

This is the case of Bennett, et al. v. Homesite Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Bennetts are represented by attorney, Joel B. Hanson of Joel B. Hanson Attorney at Law PLLC; and Homesite Insurance Company is represented by Eliot M. Harris and Jessica M. Cox of Williams Kastner & Gibbs PLLC.

Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court, said in an order on Wednesday that the Bennetts’ are entitled to a quick win on their claim that Homesite breached its contractual obligations to timely pay an appraisal award.

The court found that Homesite breached the express terms of its homeowner’s policy by not paying the full cost of an appraisal award to Robert and Meg Bennett within 30 of the date that the appraisal was submitted to the insurer.

According to the record, the appraisal was issued in May, but Homesite did not send the Bennetts’ a check until July 7th. In its order, the court pointed to the fact that the policy stated that the Bennetts’ loss “will be payable” within 30 days of appraisal being issued.

The court rejected Homesite’s defense that “payable” referred to when it could start making a payment, and not when the payment was actually due. Although the court found that Homesite breached its contractual obligations under the policy, it still wanted a jury to decide on the husband and wife’s remaining claims against its insurer regarding payments that were made to the couple for the fire damage to their home.

In a sharp response, the district court judge said of Homesite's argument “This makes little sense in the context of the policy, where the loss is due to make the insured whole and where time is of the essence.”

Despite this, the judge would not grant either side a summary judgment on the couple's remaining allegations, including that the insurer acted in bad faith and violated Washington laws by offering “substantially less” in repair and mitigation costs for the fire damage than the couple was ultimately awarded through their appraisal.

However, Judge Pechman said there are “material facts in dispute” as to whether the insurer's offers to the couple were actually fair and reasonable, including claims that Homesite refused to cover necessary repairs.

Although these issues will be left for a jury to decide, the judge did note the following: “While Homesite claims that it has never disputed coverage, there does appear to be a dispute both about the scope of coverage and whether Homesite has improperly refused to pay for certain damages, including, for example, the cost of mitigation.”

Following the appraisal award in May, Homesite was ordered to pay the Bennetts approximately $152,000 for those costs following the appraisal award, according to court records.

In September 2021 the Bennetts sued Homesite in Washington state court, alleging the insurer made lowball offers to cover the fire damage to their home sustained in December 2020. Mr. And Mrs. Bennett claim that Homesite made unreasonably low offers of $30,000 and $70,000 to cover them for repair and mitigation costs, amounts that were far below estimates the Bennetts received from other contractors.

The couple also alleges that Homesite’s claims handling process contained “numerous investigative and mitigation failures,” they say that, included them relying on overworked and under-qualified claims adjusters to analyze and determine their covered losses.

The Bennetts are suing Homesite for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act and Insurance Fair Conduct Act.

Attorneys for Homesite argue that it conducted a complete, thorough, and fair investigation of the couples’ claims. Homesite says the fact that its offers were less than the appraisal award, is not enough in itself, to support claims of bad faith or violations of Washington law.