concerns whether the roof damage is excluded by the policy, and this is a matter for the district court to determine. We reverse the district court’s order that dismisses the complaint and orders an appraisal determination. The matter is remanded for determination of the claims in appraisal provision is not, in actuality, an agreement to arbitrate governed by the Uniform Arbitration Act). Arbitrators are empowered to determine not only issues of fact, but also questions of law. In contrast, appraisers do not determine liability; rather, they make valuation determinations. See Johnson, 732 N.W.2d at 346 (“It is well settled that appraisal does not determine liability under a policy. Liability depends on a judicial determination.”); see also Mork, 230 Minn. at 384, 42 N.W.2d at 35 (<HOLDING>). Appraisal proceedings, and the appraiser’s
holding that the appellate court will not find a fact that was not found below as that would be an intrusion into the province of the trial court holding that there is a duty to defend if any of the complaints allegations fall within the risk covered by the policy holding that causation is a coverage question for the court when an insurer wholly denies that there is a covered loss and an amountofloss question for the appraisal panel when an insurer admits that there is a covered loss the amount of which is disputed holding that appraisers finding that loss was not covered under the policy was a decision on a question of law not within the province of the appraisers holding that the degree of the loss of use of a body part is a question of fact whether the loss is for all practical intents and purposes is a question of law