United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Curtis Roeder for Plaintiffs.
F. Lulic for Defendant.
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FRANKLIN L. NOEL United States Magistrate Judge.
MATTER came before the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge on December 4, 2015 on Plaintiffs' and
Defendant's cross-motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos.
5 and 24). The matter was referred to the undersigned for
Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Local Rule 72.1. See Order, ECF Nos. 13 and 27.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that
both motions be GRANTED in part and DENIED in
FINDINGS OF FACT
are homeowners who held an insurance policy (“the
Policy”) with Defendant Auto-Owners. Roeder Decl. Ex.
1, ECF No. 10. Plaintiffs submitted a claim after a wind and
hailstorm damaged their home. ECF No. 10, Ex. 12. After
failing to agree on a claim amount, the parties submitted the
claim for an appraisal pursuant to the policy. ECF No. 1, Ex.
1 at 49. The appraisal panel heard evidence from both parties
and issued an appraisal award of $176, 208 on September 16,
2014. ECF No. 10, Ex. 2. The award outlined the losses as
• Dwelling-all but front and right window related loss
▪ $116, 208 replacement cost value
▪ $81, 345.60 actual cash value
Dwelling-front and right window related damage (hereinafter
“front and right windows”)
▪ $60, 000 replacement cost value
▪ $42, 000 actual cash value
Id. Both parties were unclear whether the appraisal
panel included damage to the front and right windows of the
home as part of the award, and they requested clarification
by email. Lulic Aff. Ex. 2, ECF No. 17. Although the record
before the Court does not include any written response,
Defendant claims that both parties were orally told that the
front and right windows were not related to the same storm
that caused damage to the Plaintiffs' dwelling.
Plaintiffs dispute that they were ever given this
clarification. In support of their position, Defendants
submitted affidavits from James Stoops, a member of the
appraisal panel, and Scott Moe, the umpire. Stoops Aff. ECF
No. 15; Moe Aff. ECF No. 16.
the appraisal panel, Defendants paid to Plaintiffs $81,
345.60, the actual cash value for damages to the dwelling,
not including the damages to the front and right windows. ECF
No. 17, Ex. 6. Thereafter, Plaintiffs brought suit in Dakota
County District Court. See Compl., ECF No. 1-1.
Defendants removed the case on July 23, 2015. Not. of
Removal, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment
seeking: (1) confirmation of the appraisal award in its
entirety which they define as $116, 208 for dwelling damages
and $42, 000 for the actual cash value of the right and front
windows pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 572B.01-.30; (2)
pre-award interest from September 13, 2013 to September 19,
2014 pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.09; (3) post-award
interest from September 20, 2014 to present pursuant to Minn.
Stat. § 549.09; and (4) costs and disbursements incurred
in connection with both the appraisal hearing and in bringing
this action pursuant to Minn. ...