Royal Crest Dairy, Inc. v. Continental Western Insurance Company, 1:17-cv-00949

Royal Crest Dairy owned commercial property in Denver covered by a property insurance policy that included an appraisal clause for disputes over amount of loss.
A June 24, 2015 hailstorm caused alleged damage; Royal Crest submitted a sworn proof of loss for $1,125,861.35; Continental issued a payment for $76,371.37.
Royal Crest invoked the policy appraisal provision and selected appraiser George Keys; Continental moved to disqualify Keys but that challenge was rejected by the court.
Continental moved for court-ordered appraisal protocols it drafted, claiming they were necessary to ensure a fair, impartial appraisal process.
Royal Crest opposed, arguing the proposed protocols either duplicate existing obligations or improperly rewrite the contract; Royal Crest did not object to adoption of Colorado Insurance Bulletin B-5.26 procedures.
The magistrate judge denied Continental’s motion, finding the policy’s appraisal process controls and no present basis to impose additional court-ordered protocols.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should impose additional appraisal protocols to govern the appraisal process	Proposed protocols are redundant of existing duties or impermissibly rewrite the policy	Court-ordered protocols are appropriate to ensure a fair, impartial appraisal process	Denied — court will not impose additional protocols where policy is clear and no ongoing deadlock exists

Cotter Corp. v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins., 90 P.3d 814 (Colo. 2004) (courts apply contract interpretation principles to insurance policies)
Compass Ins. Co. v. City of Littleton, 984 P.2d 606 (Colo. 1999) (courts should not rewrite clear insurance policy provisions)
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Summit Park Townhome Ass’n, 129 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (D. Colo. 2015) (district courts have previously imposed appraisal guidelines in some cases)