Browse the full Resources Index
Once an umpire has been selected in a property insurance appraisal, the way information reaches that umpire becomes an important procedural detail, not just a matter of courtesy. Most appraisal processes are structured so that communications with the umpire happen either jointly, with both appraisers present or copied, or through a clearly established channel that both sides have agreed to in advance. A one-sided conversation between one appraiser and the umpire, conducted without the other appraiser’s knowledge, is generally understood in the industry as something to avoid, sometimes described using the legal concept of an ex parte communication borrowed from judicial and arbitration practice.
The concern behind this norm is straightforward: an umpire is meant to weigh the evidence and positions from both appraisers on an equal footing, and private access by one side creates at least the appearance, and potentially the reality, of an uneven process. This applies to scheduling logistics as much as to substantive positions on the amount of loss, since even a seemingly routine call to arrange an inspection date can drift into discussion of the merits if it is not handled carefully. Many appraisers address this by copying the opposing appraiser on all written correspondence with the umpire and by declining private calls in favor of joint calls or emails that create a shared record accessible to everyone involved.
Communication among the two party-appraisers themselves also benefits from clear boundaries, particularly around tone and content. Correspondence framed as advocacy, pressing an umpire or an opposing appraiser toward a predetermined conclusion rather than presenting measurements, photographs, and documented reasoning, tends to read poorly if the file is ever reviewed by a court. Professional norms generally favor written communication that states positions plainly, backed by evidence, and avoids the kind of persuasive language associated with legal briefing rather than technical appraisal work. Even the choice of email distribution list matters more than it might seem; an appraiser who habitually drops the opposing appraiser from a thread, whether by oversight or otherwise, creates a pattern that looks different in hindsight than a single missed reply would.
Site visits present their own version of this boundary question. A joint inspection, where both appraisers and the umpire walk the property together, tends to produce the clearest record, since observations and disagreements can be discussed in real time with everyone present. Separate inspections, sometimes necessary due to scheduling constraints, place a greater burden on documentation to ensure that whatever one appraiser observed alone is communicated accurately and completely to the others rather than summarized in a way that omits inconvenient detail. When a joint inspection genuinely cannot be arranged, giving advance notice of a solo inspection date and sharing complete, unedited photographs and notes afterward helps preserve the same balance a joint walk-through would have provided.
These boundaries exist to protect the integrity of the eventual award, not to make the process needlessly formal. An umpire who receives balanced, jointly shared information from both appraisers is in a much better position to reach an independent conclusion, and a record that shows consistent, transparent communication practices tends to hold up better if either party later questions how the award was reached. Setting these expectations at the outset of an assignment, rather than improvising them as questions arise, tends to prevent the kind of misunderstanding that can otherwise color an entire appraisal.
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.
Russ Lis is a working property insurance appraiser and umpire based in Minnesota, serving clients nationwide. Contact Appraisal Resolution.