appraisal clause in Arizona

2024See Hirt, 118 Ariz. at 545-46 . ¶18 The parties here did not submit a written submission agreement to the appraisal panel, but they agreed to set the amount of loss 5 HOLADAY, et al. v. FOREMOST Decision of the Court pursuant to the appraisal clause in the insurance policy, which expressly states that the appraisers will only determine “the amount of loss.” (Emphasis added.) And it provides that “[i]n no event will an appraisal be used for the purpose of interpreting any policy provision, determining causation or determining whether any item or loss is insured by this policy.” (Emphasis added.

2012Co. v. Bush, 20 Ariz.App. 355, 358-59 , 513 P.2d 145, 148-49 (1973) (insured may waive his or her right to appraisal when “there [is] no legitimate dispute as to amount of loss” and insurer begins repairs). ¶ 52 Further, MetLife manager Woolley acknowledged that when she spoke to Ken Nardelli on October 29, 2002, “he made it quite clear ... he wasn’t going to authorize the repairs.” Thus, internally, MetLife employees discussed using the appraisal provision for MetLife’s benefit and noted, in an internal email, they hoped to “amicably conclude this matter short of invoking the appraisal clause

2012Co. v. Bush, 20 Ariz.App. 355, 358-59 , 513 P.2d 145, 148-49 (1973) (insured may waive his or her right to appraisal when “there [is] no legitimate dispute as to amount of loss” and insurer begins repairs). ¶ 52 Further, MetLife manager Woolley acknowledged that when she spoke to Ken Nardelli on October 29, 2002, “he made it quite clear ... he wasn’t going to authorize the repairs.” Thus, internally, MetLife employees discussed using the appraisal provision for MetLife’s benefit and noted, in an internal email, they hoped to “amicably conclude this matter short of invoking the appraisal clause

2012Co. v. Bush, 20 Ariz.App. 355, 358-59 , 513 P.2d 145, 148-49 (1973) (insured may waive his or her right to appraisal when “there [is] no legitimate dispute as to amount of loss” and insurer begins repairs). ¶ 52 Further, MetLife manager Woolley acknowledged that when she spoke to Ken Nardelli on October 29, 2002, “he made it quite clear ... he wasn’t going to authorize the repairs.” Thus, internally, MetLife employees discussed using the appraisal provision for MetLife’s benefit and noted, in an internal email, they hoped to “amicably conclude this matter short of invoking the appraisal clause

2012Co. v. Bush, 20 Ariz.App. 355, 358-59 , 513 P.2d 145, 148-49 (1973) (insured may waive his or her right to appraisal when “there [is] no legitimate dispute as to amount of loss” and insurer begins repairs). ¶ 52 Further, MetLife manager Woolley acknowledged that when she spoke to Ken Nardelli on October 29, 2002, “he made it quite clear ... he wasn’t going to authorize the repairs.” Thus, internally, MetLife employees discussed using the appraisal provision for MetLife’s benefit and noted, in an internal email, they hoped to “amicably conclude this matter short of invoking the appraisal clause

2010See Restatement § 27 cmt. e (“if the issue [decided in the prior case] was one of law, new arguments may not be presented to obtain a different determination of that issue”); see also Barassi v. Matison, 134 Ariz. 338, 341 , 656 P.2d 627, 630 (App.1982) *441 (issue preclusion bars legal argument in subsequent case that could have been raised in prior case). ¶ 25 Second, the Districts’ Article 10 argument, as it pertains to the Modified Easement, fails because the public auction requirement applies to state trust land “sold or leased” and the appraisal requirement applies to the “sale or other

2010See Restatement § 27 cmt. e (“if the issue [decided in the prior case] was one of law, new arguments may not be presented to obtain a different determination of that issue”); see also Barassi v. Matison, 134 Ariz. 338, 341 , 656 P.2d 627, 630 (App.1982) *441 (issue preclusion bars legal argument in subsequent case that could have been raised in prior case). ¶ 25 Second, the Districts’ Article 10 argument, as it pertains to the Modified Easement, fails because the public auction requirement applies to state trust land “sold or leased” and the appraisal requirement applies to the “sale or other

2009See, e.g., Sparks v. McCluskey (McCluskey II), 84 Ariz. 283, 287 , 327 P.2d 295, 297 (1958) (“Nor is it a question of mere misjudgment of the assessing officials as to values; it is a question of an intentional overassessment of a portion of a certain class of property in specified areas as compared with assessment of like property in the rest of the county.”). 13 *611 ¶ 17 The County did not merely make an appraisal error; it applied a wholly different valuation procedure to properties within the same class.

2009See, e.g., Sparks v. McCluskey (McCluskey II), 84 Ariz. 283, 287 , 327 P.2d 295, 297 (1958) (“Nor is it a question of mere misjudgment of the assessing officials as to values; it is a question of an intentional overassessment of a portion of a certain class of property in specified areas as compared with assessment of like property in the rest of the county.”). 13 *611 ¶ 17 The County did not merely make an appraisal error; it applied a wholly different valuation procedure to properties within the same class.

1994Goglia v. Bodnar, 156 Ariz. 12, 19 , 749 P.2d 921, 928 (App.1987).

1994Goglia v. Bodnar, 156 Ariz. 12, 19 , 749 P.2d 921, 928 (App.1987).