These consolidated appeals arise out of a common claim that Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, and Atlanta Casualty Company, conspired with CCC Information Services, Inc. CCC, a company that provides total-loss valuations to the insurance companies, to intentionally undervalue automobile property damage claims.1 Mary Walker was involved in a car accident in which her vehicle was totaled, and she filed a lawsuit against State Farm and CCC, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, fraudulent concealment, fraud in the inducement, and violations of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act RICO in connection with the alleged conspiracy between State Farm and CCC to deliberately undervalue her total-loss claim. While Walker’s case was pending, the trial court ordered the enforcement of an appraisal provision in her State Farm insurance contract. The court-ordered enforcement of the appraisal provision resulted in a total-loss valuation that was greater than the amount that had initially been determined by State Farm. State Farm paid the higher valuation determined from the appraisal process, and the trial court dismissed Walker’s fraud, breach-of-contract, and RICO claims, finding that these issues were rendered moot in light of the appraisal process and the resulting higher payment for the value of Walker’s vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed see McGowan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. , 274 Ga. App. 483 618 SE 2d 139 2005, and we granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that invocation of the appraisal clause in this case mooted Walker’s fraud, breach-of-contract, and RICO claims. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
In reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, an appellate court must construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the appellant with all doubts resolved in the appellant’s favor. Alford v. Public Svc. Comm. , 262 Ga. 386, n. 2 418 SE2d 13 1992. A motion to dismiss should only be granted if the allegations of the complaint, construed most favorably to the plaintiff, disclose with certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts. Cooper v. Unified Govt. of Athens-Clarke County , 275 Ga. 433 2 569 SE2d 855 2002. Therefore, we must assume for purposes of this appeal that, as alleged in Walker’s complaint, State Farm deliberately conspired with CCC to undervalue total-loss claims under its insurance policies so that it could avoid making proper actual cash value payments to its insureds. With this in mind, we turn to the appraisal clause at issue. The clause states, if the vehicle owner and State Farm cannot agree on the actual cash value of the vehicle at the time of the loss, either party may demand an appraisal as described below. . . . Appraisal under item 1 above shall be conducted according to the following procedure. Each party shall select an appraiser. These two shall select a third appraiser. The written decision of any two appraisers shall be binding. The cost of the appraiser shall be paid by the party who hired him or her. The cost of the third appraiser and other appraisal expenses shall be shared equally by both parties. By its own language, the appraisal clause provides a method by which the insurer and the insured can make a final determination regarding the actual cash value of a totaled car when there is a dispute as to the car’s value. The clause does not purport to provide a means of addressing broader issues such as an insurer’s potential liability to an insured for claims made in a lawsuit.”The appraisal process does not determine questions of liability.” McGowan , supra, 274 Ga. App. at 487 1. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals relied on Southern General Ins. Co. v. Kent , 187 Ga. App. 496 370 SE2d 663 1988 and Eberhardt v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. , 223 Ga. App. 478 477 SE2d 907 1996, to reach the conclusion that State Farm was shielded from potential legal liability for fraud and other claims because such claims were rendered moot by invocation of the appraisal clause in the insurance contract. See McGowan , supra, 274 Ga. App. at 489 2. Kent and Eberhardt , however, do not support this result.
