FOLLOW US

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.