- 10 -
the building to a safe condition upon receipt of insurance
proceeds from Atlas. Mr. Orloff further indicated that appraisal
was being sought with respect to the insurance claim. Mr. Orloff
believed the 30-day limit prescribed by the November 17 letter
was not likely to be strictly enforced.
At some point during 1994, Atlas offered petitioner $22,000
for damage to the south building, but nothing for the contents;
petitioner rejected this offer. After the offer was rejected,
petitioner requested an “appraisal”, a formal procedure
authorized in the insurance policy designed to resolve
disagreements between insurer and insured as to the amount of
damages from a particular loss. In this procedure, each party to
the insurance policy nominates an appraiser, and the two
appraisers select an independent party who reaches a value of the
loss binding on both parties. From December 1994 until at least
February 1995, petitioner made repeated requests for appraisal.
Atlas did not respond to those requests, and informed petitioner
in February 1995 that petitioner’s claim was not ripe for
appraisal, primarily because Atlas had concluded that petitioner
was not entitled to coverage at all under the policy.
In March 1995, William Stewart (Mr. Stewart), an attorney
representing Atlas, conducted an examination under oath of
petitioner with respect to his claim for coverage arising from
the roof collapse. After the examination, in a letter to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011