Court Appointed Umpires: The Petition Process

Browse the full Resources Index

Most property insurance policies that include an appraisal clause expect the two party-appointed appraisers to agree on an umpire between themselves. In practice, that agreement does not always happen. The two appraisers may submit competing candidate lists that never overlap, or one side may object to every name the other proposes. When the parties reach that kind of standstill, the policy language typically allows either party to ask a court to appoint the umpire, and it is this mechanism, not informal negotiation, that resolves a meaningful share of appraisal impasses around the country.

The petition itself is usually a short motion filed in the appropriate court, often a county or district court where the insured property sits or where the policy specifies venue. The filing identifies the policy’s appraisal provision, describes the efforts already made to select an umpire, and asks the court either to appoint a specific person or to order a selection method, such as alternating strikes from a joint list. Some courts ask each side to submit a short list of qualified candidates and then choose from among them; others delegate the choice to a court administrator or refer the matter to a retired judge acting as a neutral.

Judges handling these petitions generally do not evaluate the substance of the underlying claim. Their task is narrower: confirming that an impasse exists, that the policy does provide for court intervention, and that the proposed umpire has no disqualifying conflict of interest. Some jurisdictions require the umpire to have specific experience with the type of property or loss at issue, while others leave qualification standards to the policy language or to the discretion of the parties. The resulting order becomes the umpire’s source of authority for the appraisal that follows.

Once appointed, an umpire ordinarily begins by reading the appraisal provision itself, along with the two appraisers’ positions and the property’s loss documentation, before scheduling any conference or hearing. The petition process, while sometimes viewed as adversarial because it requires court involvement, is a structural safeguard built into many policies precisely because appraisers do not always agree on a neutral third party without help. It exists to keep the appraisal process moving rather than to assign blame for the delay that preceded it. Whether coverage applies to a given item of damage is a separate question that belongs to the policy language and the parties, not to the umpire or the court handling the petition.

The time a petition takes to resolve varies widely depending on the court’s docket and the complexity of the underlying dispute. Some judges rule on a straightforward petition within a matter of weeks, particularly when both parties agree that an impasse exists and simply need a mechanism for selection. Others require a short hearing, especially if one party contests whether the prior selection efforts were made in good faith or argues that the policy’s appraisal provision does not apply to the dispute in the first place. In Minnesota, as in many states, courts handling these petitions tend to treat them as a narrow procedural matter rather than an opportunity to litigate the merits of the claim, which keeps the process from turning into a substitute for the appraisal itself. Once a court order names an umpire or sets a selection method, the parties generally cannot simply ignore it in favor of further private negotiation, though many appraisal provisions still allow the parties to jointly agree on a different umpire later if both sides prefer someone else. Attorneys representing either the policyholder or the insurer sometimes participate in the petition process even though they typically play a limited role once the appraisal itself gets underway, since the appraisal clause is designed to keep the actual determination of loss amount in the hands of the appraisers and the umpire rather than counsel. Understanding this handoff, from a court-supervised selection process to an appraiser-driven evaluation of damage, helps explain why the petition stage can look and feel like litigation even though what follows it usually does not.

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 works nationwide as a property insurance appraiser and umpire, based in Minnesota. Contact Appraisal Resolution.