MEMORANDUM AND ORDER After a fire severely damaged their home, plaintiffs Alfred and Lynn Milano sought to recover benefits under their insurance policy. Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) acknowledged coverage, but the parties could not agree on the amount of the loss. They agreed to convene a panel to appraise the damage. Each party selected an appraiser. The parties then had a court appoint an umpire to resolve any disagreement between the appraisers. A majority of that panel — the umpire and State Farm’s appraiser — determined that plaintiffs were entitled to $1,013,936.07 as replacement cost value or $834,466.65 as actual cash value. Plaintiffs move to vacate this appraisal award on the grounds that no one disclosed that the umpire had a past connection to State Farm’s appraiser. Specifically, from about 1999 to 2009, the umpire had worked as the NY/NJ general manager for Woods Restoration, Inc. — a now-defunct company where State Farm’s appraiser had been one of the principals. Because this relationship was not material, and because it was adequately disclosed, plaintiffs’ motion is denied. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background In May 2017, State Farm issued a homeowner’s insurance policy to plaintiffs Alfred and Lynn Milano. See Renewal Certificate at 5 (Dkt. #19-1). Subject to certain conditions, the policy covered damages to plaintiff’s dwelling and personal property from June 2017 to June 2018. See Homeowners Policy at 3-25 (Dkt. #19-1). In November 2017, a fire damaged plaintiffs’ home. See Compl. 9 (Dkt. #1-1). State Farm acknowledged coverage and estimated the replacement cost value to be $1,744,454.24, see id.
12, 16, or an actual cash value of $1.472,359.66, see Def.’s Mem. of L. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Vacate Appraisal Award at 2 (Dkt. #19-13) (“Def.’s Memo”). Plaintiffs did not agree; they thought the replacement cost value was more than $2,800,000. See Compl. 20; Pl.’s Mem. of L. in Supp. of Mot. to Vacate the Appraisal Award at 1 (Dkt. #18) (“Pls.’ Memo”). Plaintiffs demanded an appraisal of the amount of the loss. See Compl. 17; Pls.’ Memo at 1. Under the insurance policy, either party could “demand that the amount of the loss be set by appraisal.” See Homeowners Policy at 14. The policy described this process: First, the parties would each “select a competent, disinterested appraiser.” Ibid. Next, the two appraisers would “select a competent, impartial umpire,” or if they could not agree, petition a “judge of a court of record…to select an umpire.” Ibid. The appraisers would then each attempt to “set the amount of the loss.” Ibid. If they disagreed, they would “submit their differences to the umpire,” and “any two of the[] three” would “set the amount of the loss.” Ibid. Defendant agreed to appraise the amount of the loss through that process. See Troisi Letter (Aug. 14, 2019) (Dkt. #18-2). The parties each retained an appraiser. Plaintiffs selected Jeffrey Pellet of Professional Insurance Estimating & Appraisals. See Pls.’ Memo at 2; Def.’s Memo at 2. Defendant selected Timothy Woods of J.S. Held, LLC. See Pls.’ Memo at 2; Def.’s Memo at 2-3. These appraisers could not agree on an umpire, so in October 2019, the parties petitioned the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, to appoint one. See Notice of Pet. (Oct. 24, 2019) (Dkt. #18-4). To assist the court, each party offered a slate of candidates. See id.
