dissenting.
I disagree with the majority that the “Loss Payment” provision, requiring plaintiffs to first tender proof that repairs had been made prior to receiving the replacement cost value, applied as a condition precedent to modify the appraisal award. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
In concluding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor, the majority opinion first examines the trial court’s conclusion that the “Guaranteed Replacement Cost Endorsement” voided the “Loss Settlement” provision. According to the majority, the trial court erred in so concluding because the endorsement only applied if the loss exceeded the policy limits, which is not the case sub judice.
I believe that the majority erroneously relies upon this assessment that the endorsement applies only if the loss exceeds the policy *406limit. In fact the majority’s assessment is not based on the actual content of the endorsement, as the endorsement does not appear in the record on appeal, but rather, is based upon a one-sided interpretation by defendant’s own attorney. Furthermore, because it is not in the province of the trial court to recite conclusions of law in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, see Vulcan Materials Co. v. Iredell County, 103 N.C. App. 779, 781, 407 S.E.2d 283, 285 (1991), the trial court’s conclusions do not dictate the scope of our review. Therefore, the propriety of the trial court’s conclusion regarding the endorsement is irrelevant where we find other or alternative grounds upon which to affirm.
I am of the opinion that summary judgment was appropriate, not based upon the replacement endorsement, but upon the binding nature of the appraisal process. As aptly noted by the majority, “an appraisal award is presumed valid and is binding absent evidence of fraud, duress, or other impeaching circumstances.” Enzor v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 123 N.C. App. 544, 545-46, 473 S.E.2d 638, 639 (1996) (citation omitted). Our law governing appraisals, while strict, preserves the purpose of appraisal provisions “to settle the matter in controversy [and] save the expense of litigation.” N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harrell, 148 N.C. App. 183, 187, 557 S.E.2d 580, 582 (2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Harrell Court based its holding upon the above-stated, well-established principals of law. Unlike the majority, I find the crux of our holding in Harrell indistinguishable from the instant case and applicable for the following reasons.
First, the distinction in procedural posture between the case sub judice and that in Harrell as noted by the majority appears to be one without a difference.
Second, in the present case, similar to the circumstances in Harrell, a provision separate from the appraisal clause stated that the actual cash value would be tendered unless the insured proved that repairs had been completed. However, the policy’s appraisal provision, virtually identical to the provision in Harrell, stated that where the parties cannot agree, as to the amount of the loss, they would submit to an appraisal. The provision further stated that when at least two of the three (two appraisers and one umpire) agree on an award, their decision “set[s] the amount of loss.” Furthermore, the parties agreed that the appraisal would be binding.
*407If the parties had not submitted to the appraisal process, the “Loss Settlement” provision would have imposed certain conditions on plaintiffs’ entitlement to the replacement cost value, including plaintiffs’ obligation to prove that the necessary repairs had been completed. Instead, when the parties submitted to the contractual appraisal process, the resulting conclusion to that process “set the amount of loss.”
Also, I believe that the majority’s reliance on Central Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Gur. Co., 466 N.W.2d 257 (Iowa 1991) is misplaced as that case is wholly distinguishable from the case sub judice. In Central, the insurance policy’s appraisal provision stated that an appraiser was to be “disinterested,” while the “Agreement for Appraisal,” entered into after the parties elected appraisal and independent of the insurance policy, did not set forth the same appraiser qualifications. Id. at 259. Given the plaintiff’s subsequent agreement to pay its appraiser a contingency fee based upon the amount of loss assessed, the defendant filed for summary judgment, arguing that such payment rendered the appraiser interested in contravention of the policy’s appraisal provision. Id. at 259-60. Given these facts, the Iowa Supreme Court concluded that the policy’s appraisal provision, requiring appraisers to be disinterested, controlled over the appraisal agreement which did not expressly dictate such qualification. Id. at 260-61. If anything, Central supports a position opposite that adopted by the majority — that the appraisal process and the corresponding insurance policy provision results in a binding award.
The majority notes that the appraisal provision in the present case does not indicate that a resulting appraisal is the exclusive remedy. I disagree, as the provision expressly states that the appraisal process “set[s] the amount of loss.” I would also note the glaring absence in the appraisal provision of a reservation, by defendant, of its rights to modify the appraisal award. See High Country Arts & Craft Guild v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 629, 634 (4th Cir. 1997) (finding that insurer retained its rights to deny a claim, even following an appraisal process, because insurer had inserted language in the insurance policy stating that it retained that right even if an appraisal was conducted). In the absence of such a provision, I cannot agree with the majority that the “Loss Settlement” provision modifies an otherwise binding appraisal.
For the above-stated reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s order granting partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs.