Filed: May 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-19-2004 Camden Fire Ins v. KML Sales Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-4114 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Camden Fire Ins v. KML Sales Inc" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 693. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/693 This decision is brought to you for free and open acces
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-19-2004 Camden Fire Ins v. KML Sales Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-4114 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Camden Fire Ins v. KML Sales Inc" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 693. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/693 This decision is brought to you for free and open access..
More
Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-19-2004
Camden Fire Ins v. KML Sales Inc
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-4114
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Camden Fire Ins v. KML Sales Inc" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 693.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/693
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 02-4114
____________
CAMDEN FIRE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION,
Appellant
v.
KML SALES, INC.; ROBERT KEICHER;
GERALD KEICHER; DONALD KEICHER;
HENRY KEICHER, t/d/b/a KEICHER BROS.
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 99-cv-00362)
District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 1, 2004
Before: ALITO, FISHER and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed May 19, 2004)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
The Camden Fire Insurance Association (“Camden”) appeals a district court order
which appointed an umpire to oversee an arbitration process. The umpire was appointed
to decide between two estimates of the value of inventory destroyed by fire. This Court
dismisses the appeal because the order that appointed the umpire was not a final,
appealable order that would allow us to exercise jurisdiction.
On June 20, 1997, a fire caused the destruction of KML Sales, Inc.’s (“KML”)
inventory. KML was insured under a policy issued by Camden, and the policy contained
an appraisal provision.1 When the parties disagreed as to the replacement cost of the
destroyed inventory, Camden requested that the parties resolve the dispute through the
appraisal provision in the insurance contract. KML challenged the applicability of the
appraisal provision. After a bench trial, the district court ordered that the dispute be
resolved through the appraisal process on August 11, 2000. KML appealed the order, and
this Court affirmed.
The appraisal process called for each party to select an appraiser. Together, the
two appraisers would decide the replacement cost of the destroyed inventory. If the
appraisers could not come to an agreement, the district court would appoint an umpire
who would decide between the two appraisers’ proposed replacement costs.
Each party selected an appraiser, and the appraisers could not reach an agreement.
On October 29, 2002, KML filed a motion to appoint an umpire and submitted three
individuals for the district court’s consideration. The district court appointed one of those
1
The parties both call this provision an “appraisal provision”, but it is in fact a form of
arbitration.
2
individuals as umpire on October 30, 2002. Camden immediately filed a motion to vacate
the order and appoint a different umpire, and Camden submitted the names of three
additional individuals. In a November 4, 2002 memorandum order, the district court
(1) vacated the first order appointing the umpire, (2) stated that the court further
considered the qualifications and impartiality of both parties’ suggested umpires, and
(3) reappointed the original umpire.
Camden claims that the district court’s order that appointed an umpire is a final
appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it “will fully resolve all claims
presented to the district court” and “after the decision has been issued, there will be
nothing further for the district court to do.” Camden brief at 1, quoting Aluminum Co. of
America v. Beaver East, Inc., 124 F.3d 551, 557 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
KML maintains that the instant order is not a final, appealable order, because the
August 11, 2000 district court order requiring the dispute to be resolved through the
appraisal process was the final order. KM L asserts the disputed order at issue here is
merely remedial and administrative.
This Court agrees. The order of the district court that appointed the umpire is not
an appealable final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
“A final decision is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing
for the Court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233
(1945). Here, the final decision which ended the last round of litigation on its merits was
3
the decision to grant Camden specific performance on the insurance contract and send the
dispute to appraisal. That decision was the final decision, it was appealed, and it was
upheld by this Court.
“[A] final decision is one which disposes of the whole subject, gives all the relief
which was contemplated, provides with reasonable completeness, for giving effect to the
judgment and leaves nothing to be done in the cause save to superintend, ministerially,
the execution of the decree.” Isidor Paiewonski Assocs., Inc. v. Sharp Properties, Inc.,
998 F.2d 145, 150 (3d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). “[I]n
assessing the appealability of a post-judgment order, the appropriate inquiry is whether
the order is more than simply administrative in that it affects the rights or creates
liabilities not previously resolved by the adjudication on the merits.”
Id.
Camden originally came to court to enforce the insurance policy’s appraisal
process, and the district court did so. According to the insurance policy written by
Camden, once the parties entered the appraisal process, they had the right to an umpire if
the appraisers could not agree. When the appraisers did not reach an agreement, the
district court acted within the appraisal process and appointed the umpire.
Camden is not without redress if it is unhappy with the outcome of the appraisal
process. It could institute a separate proceeding in the district court to vacate the
arbitration award on the basis of the umpire’s alleged bias. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2);
4
Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86 (2000); Aluminum Co. of
America v. Beazer East
Inc., 124 F.3d at 555-561.2
Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
________________________
2
This Court reviewed additional cases cited by the parties and finds them
distinguishable. Both Pacific Reinsurance Mgmt. v. Ohio Reinsurance Corp., 814 F.2d
1324 (9th Cir. 1987), and Manze v. State Farm Ins. Co.,
817 F.2d 1062 (3d Cir. 1987),
compelled the parties to enter arbitration and appointed an umpire or arbitrator within the
same order.
Here, there are two separate orders. The August 11, 2000 final order compelled
arbitration. The November 4, 2002 administrative order at issue merely appointed the
umpire.
5
