Seventh Circuit Clarifies that Appraisers May Decide Causation and Limits Insurers’ “Right-to-Deny” After Appraisal

Introduction

Mesco Manufacturing, LLC (“Mesco”) and Motorists Mutual Insurance Company (“Motorists”) found themselves at odds over the extent of hail damage to the roofs of Mesco’s industrial facilities in Greensburg, Indiana, following an August 2018 storm. Although the parties’ commercial property policy contained a standard appraisal clause designed to offer a swift and inexpensive method of resolving valuation disputes, Motorists refused to pay the full amount set by the appraisal panel, contending that the panel had improperly ventured into issues of causation and that Motorists retained an unfettered contractual “right to deny” coverage regardless of the award.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled for Mesco at summary judgment, and the Seventh Circuit has now affirmed, crafting an influential opinion that:

Recognises that, under Indiana law, appraisers may decide factual questions of causation when determining the amount of loss;
Holds that once the parties voluntarily submit to appraisal, the resulting award is binding absent exceptional circumstances such as fraud, collusion, or manifest injustice; and
Interprets a policy’s “right-to-deny” clause narrowly, rejecting the notion that it gives an insurer a carte-blanche power to undo a binding award simply because it disagrees with the outcome.

Summary of the Judgment

Writing for a unanimous panel (Ripple, Scudder, and Maldonado, JJ.), Judge Ripple affirmed summary judgment for Mesco. The court held:

The appraisal panel had authority to determine whether hail, as opposed to ordinary wear and tear, caused damage to the modified bitumen roofs. Deciding causation in this limited, factual sense is inherent in assessing the “amount of loss.”
The appraisal award—signed by both Mesco’s appraiser and the umpire—was therefore binding.
Motorists’ reliance on the policy language stating that it would “still retain [its] right to deny the claim” after an appraisal was misplaced; that sentence does not allow an insurer to disregard a binding award merely because it disputes causation.
No exceptional circumstances (fraud, collusion, manifest injustice, violation of other policy conditions) were present to justify vacating the award.
Accordingly, Motorists breached the insurance contract by paying only a fraction of the \$1,020,490.32 replacement-cost award.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Villas at Winding Ridge v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Villas (Seventh Cir. 2019) involved another hail-loss dispute and a materially identical appraisal clause, including the “right-to-deny” sentence. The panel in Mesco relied heavily on Villas for two propositions: (1) Indiana courts favour giving effect to the binding nature of appraisal awards; and (2) the “right-to-deny” clause does not vitiate an otherwise valid award.

Atlas Construction Co. v. Indiana Insurance Co.

Although decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals in 1974, Atlas remains the touchstone for the rule that appraisal awards are binding absent exceptional circumstances. The Seventh Circuit reiterated this principle, framing the dispute squarely within Atlas’s analytical structure.

FDL, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.

Cited for the same binding-award rule, FDL (7th Cir. 1998) further informs when a court may vacate an award—only for fraud, collusion, manifest injustice, etc. The court noted Motorists raised none of those defences.

Shifrin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Motorists leaned on dicta from Shifrin (S.D. Ind. 2014) suggesting that appraisers should “stick to dollar amounts.” The Seventh Circuit distinguished Shifrin as non-binding, noting that its focus was on the availability of appraisal, not its scope, and that even Shifrin acknowledged appraisal “can be useful … where issues of causation mix in.”

National and out-of-state authorities

The opinion collects supportive caselaw from other jurisdictions (e.g., TMM Investments, 5th Cir.; BonBeck, 10th Cir.; Minnesota and Texas Supreme Court decisions) recognising that separating hail damage from wear-and-tear is an appraiser’s task, not a legal question of coverage.

Legal Reasoning

The Seventh Circuit’s reasoning proceeds in two logical steps:

Scope of Appraisal. Indiana has not squarely answered whether appraisers may decide causation; the federal court therefore predicts how the Indiana Supreme Court would rule. Relying on persuasive authority and practical considerations, the court concluded that determining how much of a roof is hail-damaged necessarily requires determining whether the damage was caused by hail. This is a factual, not legal, inquiry, analogous to valuing fire damage when several forces may be at play.
Effect of “Right-to-Deny” Language. Even if an insurer retains traditional policy defences after appraisal (e.g., late notice, arson, an excluded peril such as flood), it cannot use the clause to relitigate the very factual dispute submitted to and resolved by appraisal. Otherwise, the appraisal process would be pointless. Contract principles of harmony and non-superfluity support reading the policy as making the award binding while preserving independent defences.

Impact of the Decision

The ruling has several immediate and long-term consequences:

Indiana Insurance Practice. Adjusters writing policies governed by Indiana law must recognise that appraisers can decide causation disputes. Insurers who wish to reserve that determination for themselves or for courts must draft more explicit language.
Litigation Strategy. Attorneys for insureds gain a formidable tool: once an insurer agrees (or is compelled) to appraisal, disputing causation later is nearly impossible absent proof of fraud.
Speed and Finality. The decision reinforces the policy objective of quick, low-cost dispute resolution, potentially reducing the volume of protracted coverage litigation in the hail- and wind-damage context.
National Persuasive Authority. While binding only in the Seventh Circuit, Mesco joins a growing body of appellate caselaw harmonising the causation/valuation divide, likely to influence courts in jurisdictions that have not yet addressed the issue.
Policy Drafting Trend. Expect insurers to revisit standard ISO appraisal wording. Some may modify the “right-to-deny” sentence or insert explicit language limiting the panel to “amount of loss assuming coverage.” Whether such amendments will survive judicial scrutiny remains to be seen.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Appraisal Clause. A contractual mechanism (common in property policies) allowing each party to hire an appraiser; the appraisers pick an umpire; any two signatures on an award makes it binding.
Amount of Loss vs. Coverage. “Amount of loss” asks, “How much will it cost to repair/replace the damaged property?” “Coverage” asks, “Is the peril that caused the damage covered?” Mesco clarifies that identifying the physical cause of damage can be part of “amount of loss.”
Right-to-Deny Clause. A sentence in many policies stating the insurer may still raise coverage defences after an appraisal. The Seventh Circuit now reads this right as limited to defences independent of the appraisal’s factual findings.
Exceptional Circumstances. Grounds on which a court may vacate an appraisal award—fraud, collusion, manifest injustice, breach of appraisal procedure, or violation of another policy condition. Simple disagreement with the award’s figure is insufficient.
Diversity Jurisdiction (§1332). Federal jurisdiction premised on the parties being citizens of different states and meeting the statutory amount in controversy—why this Indiana contract dispute landed in federal court in the first place.

Conclusion

Mesco Manufacturing, LLC v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. cements two core propositions in Indiana insurance law: (1) appraisers are empowered to decide factual causation questions intertwined with valuation, and (2) insurers cannot invoke a generalized “right to deny” to escape the consequences of a binding appraisal award. The decision strengthens the finality of the appraisal process, aligns Indiana with the national trend favouring broad appraisal authority, and provides clear drafting guidance for risk managers and underwriters. Future litigants should expect courts in the Seventh Circuit to enforce appraisal awards strictly—unless a party can prove extraordinary circumstances warranting judicial intervention.