Pecoraro v. La. Citizens Ins. Corp., 258 So. 3d 212

Plaintiffs Catherine and Emma Pecoraro owned a home damaged by Hurricane Isaac (Aug. 2012) and held a Citizens wind/hail policy.
Plaintiffs invoked the policy appraisal clause after disagreement on the amount of loss; each party selected an appraiser and an umpire was selected when appraisers disagreed.
The umpire’s written report (Aug. 20, 2014) set Replacement Cost Value (RCV) amounts for Coverages A and B and noted prior payments/deductible should apply; it expressly declined to state whether RCV or Actual Cash Value (ACV) is owed under the policy.
Citizens deducted depreciation (i.e., paid ACV) and applied prior payments/deductible, paying less than the umpire’s RCV figure; Plaintiffs sued claiming they were owed the RCV difference ($10,088.12) and alleged bad faith penalties.
At bench trial the stipulated disputed amount was $10,088.12 (difference between umpire’s RCV and Citizens’ ACV payment); the trial court awarded Plaintiffs that amount, finding policy ambiguity in favor of the insured.
On appeal, the sole issue was contract interpretation: whether the policy required ACV (as stated on the declarations page) or allowed recovery of RCV based on the appraisal/ loss-settlement clauses. The appellate court reversed, holding the policy unambiguous and ACV controls.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appraisal award fixes RCV payable despite declaration page stating "Valuations... at ACTUAL CASH VALUE"	Pecoraro: appraisal clause and loss-settlement language create ambiguity; construed for insured, so RCV difference is owed	Citizens: declarations page clearly limits recovery to ACV; policy must be read as a whole so ACV controls	Court held policy unambiguous; ACV governs and Citizens correctly paid ACV; judgment for plaintiff reversed

Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 988 So.2d 186 (La. 2008) (principles for interpreting insurance contracts)
Power v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 193 So.3d 471 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2016) (interpretation of insurance contract is a question of law reviewed de novo)
PAF, Inc. v. Regions Bank, 150 So.3d 477 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2014) (contract interpretation principles)
Grefer v. Travelers Ins. Co., 919 So.2d 758 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2005) (use of extrinsic evidence when policy ambiguous)
Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., 630 So.2d 759 (La. 1994) (reasonable expectations and industry customs in construing ambiguity)
LeBlanc v. Babin, 786 So.2d 850 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2001) (insurers may limit liability where contract language is clear)
Doucet v. Huffine Roofing & Construction, 841 So.2d 916 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2003) (contract interpretation rules and construing policy as whole)