The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILLARD O. LAPE, III et al. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 21-1479
AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. SECTION: “G”
ORDER AND REASONS
Pending before the Court is Defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Co.’s (“Amica”) Motion
to Compel Appraisal and Stay Litigation Pending Completion of Appraisal.1 The pending motion
was set for submission on October 6, 2021.2 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, opposition to a motion
must be filed eight days before the noticed submission date. Plaintiffs Willard O. Lape, III and
Katherine J. Lape (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have filed no opposition at this time, and therefore
the motion is deemed to be unopposed. This Court has authority to grant a motion as unopposed,
although it not required to do so.3 Considering the motion, the memorandum in support, the record,
and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion and stays the case.
This litigation arises out of an insurance dispute concerning immovable property located
in Mandeville, Louisiana.4 Amica, Plaintiffs’ insurer, allegedly issued a homeowner’s insurance
policy (the “Policy”) covering Plaintiffs’ home.5 The Policy contains an appraisal provision that
provides a procedure for appraisal in the event that the parties cannot agree on the amount of a
1 Rec. Doc. 8.
2 Rec. Doc. 8-6.
3 Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 1993).
4 Rec. Doc. 1-1.
5 Id. at 2.
loss.6 According to the Policy, either party may demand appraisal.7 Once invoked, each party
appoints an independent appraiser who separately set the amount of loss.8 If the appraisers agree
on the amount, it is submitted to Amica; if they disagree, a neutral umpire will resolve the dispute.9
In the motion, Amica seeks an order of this Court (1) compelling the parties to participate
in the appraisal process outlined in the Policy and (2) staying this litigation pending resolution of
the appraisal.10 In support, Amica asserts that “Plaintiffs have demanded and invoked the appraisal
provision, contained within the Amica Policy, for all claims and coverages related to the Amica
Policy.”11 Further, Amica asserts that Plaintiffs and Amica have both demonstrated their
“respective intent to participate in the appraisal process” by each appointing their appraisers.12
Additionally, Amica asks this Court to stay these proceedings pending completion of the
appraisal.13 Amica asserts that its proposed stay is “limited” because “it will remain in force during
appraisal and will be lifted promptly after the appraisal is completed.”14 Amica avers that Plaintiffs
will not be prejudiced by the stay.15 Finally, Amica asserts that the reason for the stay is
“compelling” because the appraisal process may resolve this litigation.16 Given that Plaintiffs did
6 Rec. Doc. 8-1 at 3.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 3–4.
9 Id. at 4.
10 Rec. Doc. 8.
11 Rec. Doc. 8-1 at 1.
12 Id. at 1–2, 4–6.
13 Id. at 6.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. Amica includes citations to other Orders by district judges of this Court entering stays in appraisal
not file an opposition and have not disputed that they have engaged in the appraisal process, the
Court finds that Amica’s motion has merit and should be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Amica’s Motion to Compel Appraisal and Stay
Litigation Pending Completion of Appraisal’’ is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned action is STAYED AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a motion to lift the stay and reopen
the case within 30 days of completion of the appraisal process.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 4th day of November, 2021.
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cases. Id. at 7-8; see also Jarrell v. S. Fid. Ins. Co.,2011 WL 13213613 (E.D. La. Aug. 22, 2011) (Zainey, J.); Glasper
v. Fid. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 411447 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2021) (Vitter, J.).
7 Rec. Doc. 8.