Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company v. Melissa Adair, 181 So. 3d 1033

Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company (BMIC) sued ~130 insureds after insureds’ counsel sent a November 12, 2010 letter invoking appraisal for previously settled losses and requesting policy files; BMIC sought to enjoin appraisal demands as premature.
BMIC argued appraisal is triggered only when there is a true disagreement about the amount of loss and only after insureds have complied with post‑loss policy duties (proofs of loss, examinations under oath, documentation).
Baldwin Circuit Court (Dec. 2010) stayed appraisal deadlines pending insureds’ provision of a basis for rejecting prior settlements; the case later transferred to Calhoun Circuit Court.
Calhoun Circuit Court (Apr. 2011, clarified Apr. 29) ordered BMIC to name an appraiser within 10 days as to 14 insureds, finding those 14 had shown sufficient disagreement; BMIC appealed.
Alabama Supreme Court reviewed de novo (no ore tenus evidence) and reversed the April 2011 order, holding appraisal cannot be compelled until insureds satisfy post‑loss obligations and there is a genuine disagreement on amount.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (BMIC)	Defendant's Argument (insureds)	Held
Whether insureds must satisfy policy post‑loss obligations before invoking appraisal	Insureds must comply with post‑loss duties (proofs of loss, EXUs, documentation) because insurer has no obligation to evaluate or pay until those conditions are met	Policy language permits either party to demand appraisal upon disagreement; post‑loss provisions are separate and do not condition the appraisal clause	Held for BMIC: insureds must satisfy post‑loss obligations and allow investigation before appraisal can be compelled
Whether insureds had established the prerequisite "disagreement" to trigger appraisal	No genuine disagreement exists where insureds only assert dissatisfaction without providing required documentation; unilateral demand is insufficient	A notice to insurer that the settlement was inadequate suffices to create a disagreement and appraisal may be demanded; policies do not require contractors’ estimates	Held for BMIC: absent sufficient information from insureds (which BMIC is entitled to under the policies), there is no meaningful disagreement to trigger appraisal; circuit court erred in ordering appraisal for the 14 insureds

Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 817 So.2d 687 (Ala. 2001) (insurer policy construction principles)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 26 So.3d 1167 (Ala. 2009) (policy interpretation rules; give words ordinary meaning)
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Nilsen, 745 So.2d 264 (Ala. 1998) (insurer need not investigate or pay until insured complies with claim submission terms)
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So.2d 467 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (appraisal not triggered until insured complies with post‑loss duties so insurer can investigate)
Galindo v. ARI Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 771 (11th Cir. 2000) (following Romay; insurer entitled to investigate supplemental claims before appraisal)