The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for $2.6 million in building replacement costs and $250,000 in business interruption losses after two windstorms damaged their mushroom farm buildings.
The defendant insurer argued that some damage pre-existed the storms and was excluded from coverage, relying on conflicting expert reports.
The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the conflicting expert evidence regarding the cause and extent of the damage created a genuine issue requiring a trial.
The court also held that the statutory appraisal process was not appropriate for resolving disputes involving policy interpretation and causation.
