MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LYNWOOD SMITH, District Judge.

This diversity jurisdiction case is before the court on the petition of plaintiff, Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance, asking the court to appoint a neutral to umpire a dispute between the parties' respective appraisers over the amount of a covered loss, the counterclaim of defendant, Buettner Brothers Lumber Company, Inc., seeking the same relief, and defendant's motion for oral argument.1

Defendant holds a commercial property insurance policy issued by plaintiff and insuring a building owned by defendant located at 700 7th Avenue in Cullman, Alabama.2 The action arises from an insurance claim filed by defendant following damage suffered by an EF-4 tornado on or about April 27, 2011.3 Plaintiff engaged an independent adjuster who determined that the covered losses totaled $630,300.37, and plaintiff subsequently paid defendant that amount.4

Defendant contends that it suffered covered losses greater than those identified by plaintiff's adjuster, however,5 and invoked the appraisal provision of the insurance policy.6 The policy provisions controlling that process read as follows:

If there is an appraisal, we still retain our right to deny the claim.7 Defendant engaged an appraiser to represent its interests, and the appraiser valued the physical damage to the covered property at $1,309,667.80.8

The parties' appraisers could not agree on the choice of an umpire, and plaintiff filed the subject petition on March 19, 2012,9 and simultaneously submitted the names of three potential umpires.10 Defendant answered the petition on April 6, 2012, asserted a counterclaim requesting the court to appoint a neutral umpire under the policy provisions quoted above,11 and proposed two additional umpires.12 Thereafter, the parties submitted briefs outlining their arguments in favor of their proffered umpires and objections to the names submitted by the opposing party.13

Finally, defendant "requests a scheduling order and/or reasonable time designation within which an Umpire shall take evidence and render a deicision," and "requests the Court to retain jurisdiction of the matter pending complete and final resolution of the claims of the parties."14

I. UMPIRE CANDIDATES

The policy does not outline any criteria to be used in the umpire selection process.15 "[G]enerally accepted insurance principles dictate only that `an umpire selected to arbitrate a loss should be disinterested, unprejudiced, honest and competent.'" Brothers v. Generali U.S. Branch, No. CIV.A. 1:97-CV-798-MHS, 1997 WL 578681, at *3 (N.D. Ga. July 11, 1997) (quoting 6 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 3928, at 554 (1972)). The umpire "should be impartial, honest, and competent, and should not live an unreasonable distance from the scene of the loss." Corpus Juris Secundum, Insurance § 1897 (2011).

A. Umpires Proffered by Plaintiff Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company

1. A. H. "Nick" Gaede, Jr.

Nick Gaede is an attorney with the firm of Bainbridge, Mims, Rogers & Smith in Birmingham, Alabama.16 The biographical information provided by plaintiff from the website of Gaede's firm states that he "practices in the areas of construction law, alternative dispute resolution, international litigation, and business litigation."17 He received a Bachelor of Science from Yale University and a Bachelor of Laws from Duke University.18

2. Arthur J. Hanes, Jr.

Arthur Hanes is an attorney with the firm of Upchurch, Watson, White & Max in Birmingham, Alabama.19 According to the information submitted by plaintiff from Hanes's profile on the website of The National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals, Hanes "served as a Circuit Judge, Civil Division for the 10th Judicial Circuit of Alabama from 1984 until his retirement in 2002, when he launched his ADR practice, specializing in arbitration, . . ."20 The firm website also states that he has experience in the areas, among others, of "commercial/business," "construction," "contract disputes," and "insurance."21 He received a Bachelor of Arts from Princeton University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Alabama.22

3. William A. Ratliff

William Ratliff is an attorney with the firm of Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff & Brandt in Birmingham, Alabama.23 According to the information submitted by plaintiff from Ratliff's profile on the website of The National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals, the focus of his legal practice is his service as a mediator and arbitrator, and he serves as a federal court neutral.24 He also has experience in the areas of commercial litigation and insurance defense.25 He received a Bachelor of Science from the University of Alabama and a Juris Doctor from the Cumberland School of Law.26

B. Umpires Proffered by Defendant Buettner Brothers Lumber Company, Inc.

1. John A. Voelpel III

Since 1998, John Voelpel has worked at Voelpel Claim Service, Inc., in Orlando, Florida.27 Prior to 1998, he worked at American States Insurance and Nationwide Insurance.28 At those companies, he held several positions, including "Claims Examiner," "Claims Coordinator," "Claims Representative," "Branch Claims Manager," and "Division Claims Supervisor."29 Voelpel has been a member of the Umpire Committee of the Windstorm Insurance Network, Inc. since the inception of the committee, and he has taught "Umpire Certification at every conference and symposium."30

Additionally, defendant submitted a list of the 853 appraisal matters in which Voelpel has been involved.31 Of those 853 appraisal matters, Voelpel served as the appointed umpire in 801, on behalf of the insured in 2, and on behalf of the insurance carrier in 50,32 In 24 of those appraisal matters, a court appointed Voelpel as an umpire.33

2. Douglas J. McColl Jr.

Douglas McColl is a contractor and adjuster from Mobile, Alabama.34 He performs insurance claims adjusting, appraisals, and serves as an umpire through DSM & Associates, Inc.35 Since 1985, he performed claims adjusting following 25 hurricanes and tropical storms.36 He has been selected as an umpire for at least 40 appraisals since 1996.37 Finally, he has handled wind storm claims, and attended the Windstorm Insurance Network conference.38

II. ANALYSIS

A. Bias

Plaintiff argues that both of the umpire candidates offered by defendant would show bias in favor of defendant, the insured. Plaintiff states that both of defendant's proposed umpires "make their living in the insurance claim industry and have close affiliations with public adjusters who advocate for insureds."39 Plaintiff further alleges that "[b]ased on inquiries with attorneys in Florida and other sources, [it] believes prior rulings by both Voelpel and McColl have been skewed in favor of public adjusters and insureds."40 Plaintiff provides no support for this claim.

Defendant asserts that its proposed umpires are "professionals with reputations for unbiased estimations. . . ."41 Additionally, defendant implicitly attacks any claim of a bias by McColl against insurers by stating that he "has worked for Allstate, State Farm, Farmers Insurance Company, Liberty National, Bankers, and various other insurance companies," and that from "2007 to 2010 Mr. McColl worked on more than 100 appraisals for several insurance carriers in the Florida panhandle, South Florida, and Alabama."42 Insurers presumably would not hire as an appraiser an individual who was biased against them.

Defendant does not question the impartiality of plaintiff's proposed umpires.

B. Competence

The real crux of the dispute between the parties over the selection of an umpire is what qualifications make an individual a proper umpire. Plaintiff asserts that a proper umpire is a neutral individual who can make a decision between the estimates made by the parties' appraisers free of background knowledge or opinions. Defendant asserts that a proper umpire is an individual with experience and training as an umpire and in the construction and insurance appraisal fields.

Plaintiff asserts that the umpire should be "an independent and neutral trier of fact" who will "consider each party's evidence and make determinations of the scope and amount of claimed property damages and alleged loss of business income."43 Plaintiff believes that the issues to be resolved do not require "the umpire to be an expert or have significant experience in wind damage claims or construction costs."44 Rather, plaintiff conceptualizes the function of the umpire as making "determinations of fact and rulings" on "the information from respective engineers and estimators" submitted by the parties and, thus, asserts that the "umpire need not be more experienced than a judge or jury who would decide the issues had the matter been filed as a lawsuit."45 Plaintiff characterizes defendant's position as demanding "an umpire capable of disregarding the information to be submitted by the parties and willing to substitute his own opinion for those of the engineer reports."46

Defendant claims that

Defendant believes that the umpire needs to have a background in construction and insurance appraisal because "[i]t is expected that the real disputes between the parties will come down to the scope of work which has to be completed to provide the insured its replacement costs entitlement under the policy," and it will be difficult for an individual without such a background to resolve this dispute.48

The court finds that defendant presents an overly complicated view of the umpire position and the appraisal process, and an overly simplified view of the qualifications of plaintiff's proposed umpires. An umpire essentially serves in the same role as that of a judge or jury tasked with deciding which of two damages calculations is correct. Judges and juries are entrusted with the ability to make such decisions despite their general lack of specialized knowledge. The umpire need only consider the evidence presented by each party in order to reach its decision. Thus, there is no reason that an attorney is not qualified to serve as an umpire.

Defendant also discounts the fact that while the attorneys proffered as potential umpires by plaintiff are not engineers or construction professionals, they each list construction law as one of the focuses of their practices. Throughout a career focusing, at least in part, on construction law, an attorney can accumulate a working knowledge of the construction industry. Thus, while not experts in construction or industry appraisal, plaintiff's proposed umpires possess a working knowledge sufficient to resolve the dispute between the parties. Additionally, each of the attorneys proposed by plaintiff have experience in arbitration, which essentially is the task the umpire must perform.

C. Distance from the Loss

Defendant's proposed umpires reside in Mobile, Alabama, and Orlando, Florida, and both locations are significantly distant from the scene of the loss in Cullman, Alabama. Plaintiff's proposed umpires reside in Birmingham, Alabama, which obviously is much closer to the scene of the loss. Thus, plaintiff's proposed umpires would minimize the expenses for the parties due to the reduced travel costs to serve as umpire.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

A close reading of the pleadings filed in this case reveals the deep level of distrust that exists between the parties and their respective attorneys. Selection of any of the persons proffered as potential umpires would be misconstrued by the parties as a vindication of the fiscal interests of one at the expense of the other.

Accordingly, invoking the inherent supervisory powers of this court, and mindful of the fundamental proposition that an umpire should be impartial, honest, competent, and not reside an unreasonable distance from the scene of the loss,49 this court rejects all of the parties' proposals, and ORDERS that Mr. Wilbur P. Fowler, MAI, the owner of Fowler Bedwell & Associates, Real Estate Appraisal and Consultant Services in Arab, Alabama, shall serve as umpire of the parties' dispute.50 A summary of Mr. Fowler's qualifications is attached.

The parties are further ORDERED to mail, forthwith, copies of all materials necessary for Mr. Fowler to begin the process of assessing the loss in controversy,51 together with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and resumes of the parties' respective appraisers. Other than those mailings — complete copies of which shall be furnished to opposing counsel and to this court there must be no contact by any representative of plaintiff or defendant with Mr. Fowler.52 All discussions and conferences between and among Mr. Fowler and the parties' respective appraisers shall be initiated by Mr. Fowler. No representative of either party may be present during any of such discussions or meetings, except such as may be explicitly requested by Mr. Fowler. Mr. Fowler's fees and expenses shall be paid in equal shares by the parties, within five business days of presentation. Once a decision is agreed to by any two members of the triumvirate (i.e., the parties' respective appraisers and Mr. Fowler as umpire), that decision shall be simultaneously reported, in writing, to this court and counsel for each party

DOEN and ORDERED.

QUALIFICATIONS

Wilbur P. Fowler, MAI

Alabama State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, No. CG00035

EDUCATION:

Graduated from the University of Alabama, June 1966, receiving a B.S. degree in Business Administration, with a major in finance and major emphasis on real estate.

Completed Courses, I, II, III, IV and VI sponsored by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. Attended Income Analysis Seminar of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and successfully completed the R-2 Seminar and examination sponsored by the Society of Real Estate Appraisers prior to 1980, and was awarded the MAI designation in 1981.

Continuing specialized education from 1980 to the present included completion of the AIREA Standards of Professional Practice course and periodic updates. Other continuing education involved an average of 20 hours per year amounting to more than 500 credit hours in valuation/evaluation curriculum.

The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. Designated members who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. I (Fowler — MAI 6197) am currently certified under this program.

Completed all requirements requisite to General Real Estate Appraiser certification by states of Alabama (CG-00035) and Tennessee (CG-1179).

EXPERIENCE:

1976 to Present — Independent fee appraiser, appraising residential, agricultural, industrial, and commercial properties, easement, and Urban Renewal Projects. Owner and principal appraiser for Fowler Bedwell & Associates (formerly Fowler Appraisal), located in Arab, Alabama, and president and managing partner of AVE Real Estate Consultants, with offices in Arab and Huntsville, Alabama.

Provide advisory and consultant services to investment, environmental, accounting, legal, engineering, and property management clients with respect to use, development, redevelopment, or valuation of commercial and/or industrial real estate.

1966 to 1976 — Employed by the Tennessee Valley Authority as appraiser and review appraiser, completing and reviewing fee and easement appraisals for lake impoundment, railroad, transmission line and road right-of-way, as well as appraisal for fee purchase or sale of rural, urban, business, and industrial properties.

Serves as Federal Land Commissioner for the United States District Court, Alabama Northern Division.

ORGANIZATIONS:

COURT TESTIMONY:

Qualified as expert in the Federal District Courts in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee, testifying in approximately 250 Federal condemnation litigation proceedings prior to 1976. More recent appearances involve testimony in the Circuit Courts of Alabama, and Federal Bankruptcy Courts in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Testimony in real estate related litigation proceedings exceeds 400 cases.