Meier v. Wadena Insurance Company, 2:20-cv-01025

Plaintiff Margrit Meier (d/b/a Hartland Inn) sued Wadena Insurance for breach of contract and bad faith after a fire loss, claiming Wadena underpaid and later issued partial additional payment.
Meier invoked the policy appraisal provision; each party selected an appraiser but they disagreed on an umpire and appraisal was not completed before suit was filed.
The policy contains an appraisal clause requiring appraisal when parties disagree on amount of loss and a "legal action" clause making full compliance with policy terms (including appraisal) a condition precedent to suit.
Wadena moved to dismiss for failure to complete the contractually mandated appraisal; Wadena attached the insurance policy to its motion and asked dismissal rather than conversion to summary judgment.
Meier argued the dispute over use of the Broad Evidence Rule is a legal/coverage question outside the appraisal process and premature to dismiss; she also sought declaratory and partial summary judgment.
The court considered the policy, concluded appraisal completion was a condition precedent, rejected Meier’s argument that the Broad Evidence Rule dispute is non-appraisal coverage, and granted Wadena’s motion to dismiss; Meier’s and Wadena’s other motions were denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Meier was required to complete the contractual appraisal before suing	Meier: appraisal inapplicable because dispute over Broad Evidence Rule is a legal coverage issue, not an appraisal question	Wadena: appraisal clause is binding; appraisal must be completed as a condition precedent to suit	Court: appraisal is a contractual condition precedent; dismissal for failure to complete appraisal
Whether the Broad Evidence Rule dispute is a coverage issue that removes the matter from appraisal	Meier: Broad Evidence Rule relates to coverage/valuation boundaries and thus is judicial, not for appraisers	Wadena: method of calculating loss (including evidence used) is for expert appraisers, not the court	Court: method of valuation is within appraisers' expertise; Coppins does not prohibit appraisers from using Broad Evidence Rule; dispute must proceed through appraisal

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must plead factual content permitting reasonable inference of liability)
Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 319 Wis. 2d 52 (appraisal clause binds parties; appraisal is for third‑party experts)
Coppins v. Allstate Indem. Co., 359 Wis. 2d 179 (actual cash value determinations must be grounded in policy language and accepted definitions; does not categorically prohibit Broad Evidence Rule)
Lynch v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 163 Wis. 2d 1003 (demand for appraisal made prior to suit makes appraisal a condition precedent)
St. Croix Trading Co. v. Regent Ins. Co., 370 Wis. 2d 248 (appraisers may not resolve coverage issues)
Chapman v. Rockford Ins. Co., 89 Wis. 572 (historical authority recognizing appraisal obligations)