Browse the full Resources Index
Trust in the appraisal process is built through specific, verifiable disclosures rather than general assurances. When an appraiser or umpire is being considered for a claim, both parties benefit from knowing enough about that person’s professional history to make an informed decision about whether to proceed, and good disclosure practice means volunteering this information rather than waiting to be asked directly by one side or the other. Waiting to be asked can itself raise a question in the mind of the party who eventually does ask, since it suggests the information was not considered important enough to share until pressed for it.
A meaningful disclosure typically covers prior work history with either party or their representatives, including how many times the appraiser has served on claims involving the same insurance carrier, the same policyholder attorney, or the same public adjusting firm over some reasonable look back period, such as the past two or three years. A single prior engagement is different from a long standing pattern of repeat work, and describing the actual frequency gives the parties something concrete to evaluate rather than a vague statement that some prior relationship exists somewhere in the appraiser’s history. Some appraisers keep a running log of prior engagements by carrier and by referral source specifically so this kind of disclosure can be produced quickly and accurately when a new engagement begins.
Geographic and professional network considerations come up often in a state like Minnesota, where the community of active property appraisers and umpires is relatively small and many professionals know each other from serving opposite roles on past claims or from industry associations, training courses, and continuing education events. Disclosing these overlapping relationships, even when they do not involve a financial connection, allows the parties to judge for themselves whether any concern exists rather than discovering the connection later through some other channel. A brief professional acquaintance from a conference or an online continuing education course is a very different thing from a close working relationship built over dozens of shared assignments, and describing which one actually applies avoids unnecessary suspicion in either direction.
Umpire selection lists, sometimes maintained by industry organizations or exchanged between appraisers when the two sides cannot agree on a candidate, are another area where disclosure matters. When an appraiser proposes names for umpire consideration, disclosing their own history working with or against each proposed candidate helps the process move forward on an informed basis rather than leaving the other side to discover connections later, after an umpire has already been selected and work has begun.
None of this disclosure work eliminates the possibility of disagreement about a proposed appraiser or umpire, and reasonable parties can still decline a candidate for reasons that have nothing to do with actual bias. But a track record of proactive, specific disclosure, rather than reactive answers only when pressed, tends to be what distinguishes appraisers who are trusted repeatedly by both sides of the industry over the course of a long career handling many different claims. Over time, a consistent pattern of disclosure becomes part of an appraiser’s professional reputation, and it is often the single factor that leads both a carrier and a policyholder representative to accept the same name as umpire without hesitation.
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.