Appraisal
Arbitration
Partiality
Petition to Vacate the Appraisal Award
Assignment of Insurance Claim
Insurance Law
Rhode Island Law
The plaintiff, Vermont Mutual Insurance Company (Vermont Mutual), appeals from a July 27, 2023 Superior Court order denying its petition to vacate an appraisal award and granting the cross-petition of the defendant, New England Property Services Group, LLC (NEPSG), to confirm said appraisal award. Vermont Mutual contends on appeal that the hearing justice erred in failing to vacate the award because, in its view, there was evident partiality on the part of the defendant’s appraiser. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we vacate the order of the Superior Court, and we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Vermont Mutual received a claim by or on behalf of Ms. St. Vil for windstorm damage to the Rumford property that was alleged to have occurred on December 25, 2020.
At some point, Ms. St. Vil executed an assignment of her insurance claim to NEPSG in exchange for its work on the property.
Significantly, Mr. Ceceri is the sole owner and operator of NEPSG.
On April 13, 2022, counsel for NEPSG directed correspondence to Vermont Mutual, indicating that NEPSG “demanded appraisal concerning the underlying claim.” The Vermont Mutual insurance policy at issue provides that, in the event an insured demands an appraisal of the loss, each party will choose “a competent appraiser within 20 days after receiving a written request from the other,” and it also provides that “the two appraisers will choose an umpire.” The policy further requires that the appraisers separately “set the amount of loss.” If the appraisers do not agree as to the amount, they are to submit their differences to the umpire, and a “decision agreed to by any two will set the amount of loss.” According to Vermont Mutual, Mr. Ceceri was named as the appraiser on behalf of NEPSG despite “his clear and undisputed financial interest in the outcome of the appraisal.” In its petition to vacate the appraisal award, Vermont Mutual asserted that it had objected to Mr. Ceceri acting as an appraiser because he was not “disinterested;” however, Vermont Mutual further asserted that it had “agreed to go forward with the appraisal and reserved any and all rights to dispute the award.” The appraisal ultimately went forward with Mr. Ceceri serving as the appraiser for NEPSG, Vincent Cicci serving as the appraiser for Vermont Mutual, and Felix Carlone serving as the appraisal umpire. According to an exhibit attached to NEPSG’s cross-petition, Mr. Ceceri’s appraisal was $207,053.11, while Mr. Cicci’s appraisal was $67,645.99. The final award appraised the loss at $144,855.37. (With interest, the total amount of the award was $185,797.02.) The “Agreement Award” indicates that Mr. Ceceri and Mr. Carlone signed the award, but Mr. Cicci did not sign on behalf of Vermont Mutual.
In due course, Vermont Mutual filed a petition to vacate the appraisal award, noting that, pursuant to G.L.1956 chapter 3 of title 10 (the Arbitration Act), the Superior Court has “jurisdiction to vacate, modify, or correct an award.” Vermont Mutual asserted that, as a result of what it alleged to be Mr. Ceceri’s evident partiality, the appraisal award should have been vacated in accordance with §10-3-12. NEPSG then filed its response and cross-petition to confirm the appraisal award, in which it admitted that the Superior Court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Arbitration Act and requested that the court grant its cross-petition “and order that the appraisal award issued in this matter be confirmed pursuant to” the Arbitration Act.
(General Laws 1956 § 10-3-12(2) provides in pertinent part that a court “must make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration” in the event of “evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators, or either of them.” (Emphasis added.) (Fn. 2)).
On appeal, Vermont Mutual contends that, in denying its petition to vacate the appraisal award and granting NEPSG’s cross-petition, the hearing justice erred “by failing to apply the relevant standard in determining whether the appraisal award should have been vacated pursuant to * * * § 10-3-12(2) due to the presence of evident partiality on the part of Mr. Ceceri.”
Section10-3-11 of the Arbitration Act provides that a party to arbitration “may apply to the court for an order confirming the award” within one year after the award is made. The court must vacate an award if one of the circumstances listed in §10-3-12 is present. In view of the fact that the General Assembly has authorized the Superior Court to either confirm or vacate an award, it logically follows that the Superior Court has subject matter jurisdiction over petitions filed pursuant to the Arbitration Act. In the instant case, this Court is left with no doubt that the Superior Court had jurisdiction over Vermont Mutual’s petition to vacate the award and NEPSG’s cross-petition to confirm the award; and we are also of the view that the court acted properly in exercising its jurisdictional power. See Pollard, 870 A.2d at 433.
Having established that the Superior Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this case, we next proceed to address whether the appraisal process in this case can be equated with arbitration.
Turning to the specific language of the appraisal provision in Vermont Mutual’s policy, which sets forth its appraisal procedure, we are of the opinion that the process at issue in the instant case can be equated with arbitration. Vermont Mutual’s policy includes the following pertinent language: “If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either may demand an appraisal of the loss. In this event, each party will choose a competent appraiser within 20 days after receiving a written request from the other. The two appraisers will choose an umpire. If they cannot agree upon an umpire within 15 days, you or we may request that the choice be made by a judge of a court of record in the state where the ‘residence premises’ is located. The appraisers will separately set the amount of loss. If the appraisers submit a written report of an agreement to us, the amount agreed upon will be the amount of loss. If they fail to agree, they will submit their differences to the umpire. A decision agreed to by any two will set the amount of loss.” This language can reasonably be interpreted as providing for a dispute resolution process that, for all intents and purposes, is an arbitration. Significantly, the policy appraisal language at issue here comes tantalizingly close to mirroring the policy appraisal language at issue in Waradzin as well as the policy appraisal language at issue in the Grady case. See Waradzin, 570 A.2d at 649-50; Grady, 27 R.I. at 436-37, 63 A. at 173.
(…) We are not persuaded by the argument that the absence of the term “disinterested” from Vermont Mutual’s policy somehow materially differentiates it from the appraisal processes that this Court in Waradzin and Grady has held to be an arbitration.
(…) We hold that the appraisal procedure outlined in Vermont Mutual’s policy can be equated with arbitration and that the Arbitration Act is therefore applicable.
(…) While we have acknowledged that arbitrators are not expected to be totally impartial or disinterested and that there is an expectation that party-appointed arbitrators will serve as nonneutrals, flagrant partiality serves to undermine the integrity of the arbitration process. See Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Grabbert, 590 A.2d 88, 92-95 (R.I. 1991).
Pursuant to § 10-3-12(2), a court must vacate an award upon the application of any party to the arbitration “where there was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators, or either of them.” This Court has acknowledged that evident partiality “will be found ‘where a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration.’”Grabbert, 590 A.2d at 96 (quoting Morelite Construction Corp. v. New York City District Council Carpenters Benefit Funds, 748 F.2d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 1984)). In Grabbert, this Court established a two-step test for determining whether there is evident partiality on the part of a party-appointed appraiser. First, a party seeking to vacate an award must establish an improper interest on the part of the appraiser. Grabbert, 590 A.2d at 92. Secondly, there must be a “causal nexus” between the party-appointed appraiser’s conduct and the appraisal award. Id. In Grabbert, the arbitrator appointed by the insured was working on a contingent fee basis (ten percent of the ultimate award would be his fee), which this Court stated “gave him a direct financial interest in the award that was absolutely improper * * *.” Grabbert, 590 A.2d at 90, 92. Nonetheless, this Court went on to state that the defendant had “failed to demonstrate the required causal nexus between the party-appointed arbitrator’s improper conduct and the award ultimately decided upon.” Id. at 96. In arriving at that conclusion, this Court emphasized inter alia that the award in that case “was a unanimous decision of three experienced arbitrators.” Id.
In McGinity v. Pawtucket Mutual Insurance Co., 899 A.2d 504 (R.I. 2006), this Court was again faced with the question of whether an arbitration award should be vacated due to the existence of evident partiality. McGinity, 899 A.2d at 505. This Court determined that the failure on the part of the arbitrator to disclose to the opposing party and to the other two arbitrators his position as an attorney for the defendant satisfied the first step of the test articulated in Grabbert. Id. at 507. In addressing the question of causal nexus, this Court in McGinity pointed out that, unlike the award in Grabbert, the award at issue in the case then on appeal was not unanimous. Id. at 508. The Court also noted that the “plaintiff’s party-appointed arbitrator not only declined to agree with the other two arbitrators, but also arrived at a drastically different amount as evidenced by his minority opinion.” Id. The Court further emphasized that the “fact that the neutral arbitrator voted for the arbitration award does not disprove a causal nexus between the * * * arbitrator’s relationship to defendant and the arbitration award that two of the panel members reached.” Id. The Court in McGinity ultimately held that an attorney-client relationship between the arbitrator and the insurer was sufficient to supply the causal nexus between the improper conduct and the award. Id. In the instant case, it is quite evident that Mr. Ceceri had a direct financial interest in the award. Mr. Ceceri is the sole owner and operator of NEPSG as well as the assignee of Ms. St. Vil’s insurance claim. Therefore, NEPSG in this case acted as its own appraiser with the entire appraisal award ultimately being payable to Mr. Ceceri. In other words, Mr. Ceceri stood to benefit solely on the basis of his being the party-appointed appraiser, thereby standing to exclusively benefit from the award. To that end, NEPSG’s emphasis on the fact that Vermont Mutual continued to partake in the appraisal process in spite of the disclosure of Mr. Ceceri as NEPSG’s appraiser is unavailing. In its petition to vacate the appraisal award, Vermont Mutual asserted that it objected to Mr. Ceceri acting as an appraiser because he was not “disinterested.” These largely undisputed facts establish an improper interest on the part of Mr. Ceceri, and the first step of the test articulated in Grabbert has therefore been satisfied.
As for the second step of the Grabbert test, it is quite clear that there was a causal nexus between Mr. Ceceri’s conduct and the final appraisal award. As was the case in McGinity, the award at issue here was not unanimous. In the instant case, Mr. Ceceri’s appraisal was $207,053.11, while Mr. Cicci’s appraisal was $67,645.99. The final award appraised the loss at $144,855.37, exclusive of interest.
It is clear from these numbers that Mr. Ceceri and Mr. Cicci arrived at drastically different amounts. We do not believe it to beat all irrational to suggest that Mr. Ceceri’s inflated amount was potentially motivated by his direct financial interest in the award. Moreover, the “Agreement Award” indicates that Mr. Ceceri and Mr. Carlone signed the award, whereas Mr. Cicci declined to sign on behalf of the insurer. In our view, these uncontroverted facts thus establish a causal nexus similar to the one identified in McGinity. See McGinity, 899 A.2d at 508. Accordingly, we hold that the award should have been vacated due to the presence of evident partiality and that the hearing justice erred in failing to conduct this necessary analysis. See generally Morelite Construction Corp., 748 F.2d at 85.
Bearing in mind the authorities that we have cited and our convictions about the integrity of the alternative dispute resolution process, we have concluded that the appraisal award at issue in this case must be vacated due to the evident partiality of the appraiser for NEPSG.
We vacate the order of the Superior Court, and we remand this case to that tribunal with the direction that it order a new appraisal.
(Rhode Island Supreme Court, Vermont Mutual Insurance Comp. v. New England Property Services Group, LLC, March 20, 2025, Docket No. 2023-335-Appeal)
No comments:
Post a Comment