Browse the full Resources Index
The umpire is often the most consequential person in an appraisal proceeding, since the umpire’s vote becomes decisive whenever the two party-appraisers cannot agree, yet the umpire is typically selected jointly by two appraisers who were themselves chosen by opposing parties. Attorneys advising clients through this selection, or reviewing a proposed umpire before agreeing to a name, benefit from knowing what separates a genuinely neutral, competent professional from someone who simply has relevant experience.
Technical competence is the starting point but not the finish line. An umpire evaluating a residential loss needs working knowledge of roofing systems, siding and window installation standards, and how cold-climate details such as ice and water shield placement, attic ventilation, and proper flashing affect both damage assessment and repair cost. An umpire evaluating a larger commercial or multi-family loss needs a different, often broader technical background, potentially including membrane roofing systems, building envelope construction, and commercial estimating conventions. Attorneys should ask specifically about an umpire’s experience with the property type and damage type at issue, not just years in the field generally.
Independence matters as much as competence, and it can be harder to verify. A useful question is how often a proposed umpire works with one particular carrier, one particular independent adjusting firm, or one particular category of policyholder-side representative, since a pattern of repeat engagement with one side of the industry, even without any explicit conflict, can raise legitimate questions about impartiality over time. Attorneys reviewing a proposed umpire’s background should look for a track record that spans both carrier-side and policyholder-side appointments, which suggests a professional reputation built on fair process rather than on reliably favoring one side.
Communication style is a practical factor attorneys sometimes underweight. An umpire who documents reasoning clearly, responds to both party-appraisers in a timely and even-handed manner, and produces awards that explain the basis for the figures reached tends to produce outcomes that hold up better if later challenged. An umpire who is difficult to reach, inconsistent in communication with the two sides, or vague in the final award creates unnecessary risk, both for the immediate resolution of the claim and for any later scrutiny the award might face in court. Attorneys sometimes learn more about this trait from a brief phone conversation with the proposed umpire than from any written biography, since the conversation itself demonstrates how responsive and organized that person is likely to be once the appraisal is underway.
Finally, attorneys should consider how a proposed umpire handles disagreement itself. Some umpires simply split the difference between the two competing figures without much independent analysis, which can produce a fast resolution but not necessarily a well-reasoned one. A stronger practice is an umpire who conducts an independent evaluation, forms an informed judgment based on the evidence and, where appropriate, an independent inspection, and reaches a figure supported by that analysis rather than by arithmetic convenience. That distinction often becomes apparent only through direct conversation with the proposed umpire or through inquiry into past awards, which is why attorneys who take the selection process seriously tend to ask detailed questions before agreeing to a name.
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.