Rees v. American Security Insurance Co. CA2/6

Filed 7/21/21 Rees v. American Security Insurance Co. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

SHAWN REES, 2d Civil No. B302938 (Super. Ct. No. 18CVP-0352) Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Shawn Rees appeals an order denying his petition to vacate an appraisal award he believes undervalues the cost to repair flood damage to his house. He contends the appraisers exceeded the scope of their authority when preparing the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a)(4).)1 We conclude the appraisers did not exceed their authority. The Award conforms in all respects to the appraisal provision contained in Rees’ residential

1 We cite the Code of Civil Procedure exclusively.

flood policy. The record does not show he and his flood insurer agreed to modify or deviate from this provision. We affirm the trial court’s ruling and remand the case with orders to confirm the award. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Rees’s Paso Robles duplex sustained major flood damage during an unseasonably wet thunderstorm in July of 2015. He reported the damage to his flood insurer, American Security Insurance Company (ASIC), which immediately sent an adjuster to inspect the damage. The adjuster initially set the actual cash value (ACV) of Rees’s losses as $43,226.08 but later revised the amount to $64,631.70 after Rees documented the need for additional repairs.2 ASIC notified Rees by letter on June 30, 2017 that it had finished reviewing his claim. Enclosed was a document titled “Building Estimate” that itemized the claim’s total labor and materials costs. The figures in the Building Estimate fell far below what Rees expected. He disputed the amounts allocated for repairing and replacing most items, including wall plaster, HVAC ducting, cabinets, countertops, flooring, paint, and exterior stucco. Rees insisted his costs would exceed policy limits. He demanded ASIC correct its estimates to align with FEMA standards for water damage restoration and pay the higher rates charged by contractors when handling materials contaminated by Category 3