On Might 12, 2025, the Illinois Appellate Court docket for the Second District of Illinois held, for the primary time, that “[r]esolving some questions of causation will likely be essentially included within the appraisal course of” in affirming the trial courtroom’s grant of Plaintiff’s movement for judgment on the pleadings to compel State Farm to appraisal. 1 This choice is prone to change the panorama of insurers contesting appraisal as a “protection” dispute in Illinois shifting ahead.
The insured property was broken on account of a hail and wind occasion for which the insured submitted a declare to State Farm. State Farm agreed there was harm to gutters, downspouts, and aluminum wraps on sure window frames and trim and made cost to the insured. The insured disagreed with the evaluation and believed that the harm was in depth sufficient to require the substitute of home windows on the dwelling and invoked appraisal. State Farm refused the demand for appraisal, stating that it considered the variations in estimates to be a dispute over “protection” and never the quantity of loss.
I used to be retained by the insured to signify her in an effort to compel State Farm to appraisal. The trial courtroom granted our movement for judgment on the pleadings and compelled the dispute to appraisal. State Farm appealed.
The Illinois Appellate Court docket for the Second District of Illinois likened State Farm’s argument to constructing a home on a “basis of sand.” 2
Within the rapid matter, nevertheless, there could be little doubt that the home windows of the house are ‘coated’ below the householders coverage. There’s a dispute as as to whether or not mentioned home windows had been broken by the storm, however that isn’t the identical as a dispute as as to whether the home windows had been coated by the coverage in any respect.
The Appellate Court docket went on to state that for the reason that Defendant had already admitted the hailstorm precipitated harm to the trim of the home windows on the house and paid for that harm, “[i]t stretches credulity for [State Farm] to now assert that there’s a query concerning whether or not the home windows are ‘coated’ by the coverage. There could also be a dispute as as to whether the home windows had been broken by the hailstorm, however that isn’t a difficulty of protection. It is a matter of loss. And appraisal is ideally suited to resolve disputes over loss.” 3
In reaching its choice, the Second District Court docket of Appeals not solely seemed on the persuasive choices of Illinois federal district courts and an unpublished Illinois appellate courtroom case from the Fifth District, Shelter Mutual Insurance coverage Firm v. Morrow, 4 but additionally seemed to different international jurisdictions comparable to Iowa, Minnesota, Florida, Delaware, and Rhode Island, to call just a few. In the end, the Illinois Appellate Court docket for the Second District discovered Illinois legislation “clear and unambiguous” in concluding that the trial courtroom accurately compelled appraisal. 5
Lastly, the courtroom held that State Farm’s affirmative protection of late discover didn’t have any bearing on the precise to demand appraisal. 6 In different phrases, the appellate courtroom held that the declare of late discover could also be a matter that might must be resolved if the case continued past appraisal, however was not a difficulty that prevented or precluded appraisal.
1 Zhao v. State Farm Hearth & Cas. Co., 2025 IL App (second) 240723 (Unwell. App. Might 12, 2025).
2 Id. at ¶ 25.
3 Id. at ¶ 26.
4 Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. v. Morrow, 2023 IL App (fifth) 230249-U (Unwell. App. Aug. 24, 2023).
5 Zhao, 2025 IL App (second) 240723 at ¶ 34.
6 Zhao at ¶ 38.
