Even experienced, well qualified appraisers can reach different figures when evaluating the same loss, and understanding some of the common sources of these disagreements can provide helpful context for anyone going through the appraisal process.
Scope of work is a frequent source of disagreement, particularly around questions like whether a full replacement or a partial repair is the appropriate and necessary approach to address specific damage.
Quantities can also differ between estimates, such as the total square footage of damaged roofing or flooring, especially in cases involving irregular or hard to measure areas.
Pricing assumptions, including which specific materials or methods are used as the basis for an estimate, can lead to different total figures even when the two appraisers agree on the general scope of work.
Additional cost categories, such as overhead and profit, code upgrade requirements, or matching considerations, can also become points of disagreement depending on how each appraiser interprets their applicability to the specific claim.
These types of disagreements are a normal and expected part of the appraisal process, which is exactly why the process includes a mechanism, involving an umpire when needed, for working through them to reach a final, fair figure.
This article is general education about how the appraisal process commonly works. It is not legal advice, and specific procedures can vary by state and policy. If you have questions about your own claim, review your policy language and talk with your insurance company, agent, or an attorney familiar with your state’s laws.
Russ Lis is a working property insurance appraiser and umpire based in Minnesota, serving clients nationwide. Have a question about your own claim? Contact Appraisal Resolution.