The Village at Blacklick Creek Condominium Association v. Greater New York Insurance Company, 2:24-cv-00135

The Village at Blacklick Creek Condominium Association, representing multiple residential units in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, held a property insurance policy with Greater New York Insurance Co. (GNY).
Plaintiff alleges over $1.3 million in wind and hail damage caused by a storm in May 2022, primarily affecting the roofs of various condominium units and a clubhouse.
GNY denied the insurance claim, asserting that the condition of the roofs resulted from wear and tear or deterioration, not the storm.
Plaintiff repeatedly sought reconsideration and submitted new evidence; ultimately, it invoked the policy's appraisal provision to resolve the dispute over the amount of loss.
GNY rejected the demand for appraisal, prompting plaintiff to file suit and request an order compelling appraisal and staying related litigation.
The central question before the court is whether the dispute over causation precludes appraisal under the policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does a dispute over causation trigger appraisal?	Dispute on amount of loss includes causation, so appraisal is due	Dispute is over coverage/causation, not loss amount—appraisal is improper	Appraisal includes causation; appraisal provision triggered
Who determines extent of covered loss?	Appraisers should determine factual causation and loss amount	Only courts can resolve coverage/causation before appraisal	Appraisers can determine extent of covered/uncovered loss
Interpretation of "amount of loss" in policy	Should be interpreted broadly to protect insured’s rights	Should be restricted to disputes over amount, not coverage	Interpreted broadly incl. causation, in line with Ohio law
Impact on insured’s rights	Denying appraisal would undermine insured’s contractual rights	Coverage disputes always preclude appraisal	Insured's right to prompt & inexpensive appraisal affirmed

Saba v. Homeland Ins. Co., 159 Ohio St. 237 (Ohio 1953) (appraisal provision is valid and allows resolution of extent of loss even if liability is denied)
Hybud Equip. Corp. v. Sphere Drake Ins. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 657 (Ohio 1992) (insurance policies interpreted like other contracts, prioritizing plain meaning)
Faruque v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 31 Ohio St. 3d 34 (Ohio 1987) (ambiguous language construed in favor of insured)
Olmstead v. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 22 Ohio St.2d 212 (Ohio 1970) (words in insurance contracts to be given ordinary meaning)