Disclosure Standards for Umpire Candidates

Browse the full Resources Index

Before an umpire ever reviews a single line item, most well-run appraisals begin with a disclosure exchange. A candidate for the umpire role is typically asked to disclose prior work history with either party, including any past engagements as a party-appointed appraiser, expert witness, or consultant for the specific insurer, adjusting firm, contractor, or policyholder involved in the current dispute. The purpose is straightforward: both sides need enough information to decide whether they believe the candidate can approach the specific dispute without a predisposition toward either outcome.

Disclosure practices vary somewhat by state and by the language of the individual policy, but common elements include a summary of appraisal and umpire assignments over a recent period, typically the preceding one to five years, along with any financial relationships, family connections, or business referral arrangements with the parties or their representatives. Some appraisal organizations and state statutes set out specific disclosure requirements for umpires, particularly in states that regulate umpire qualifications directly, while other jurisdictions leave the standard to the policy language and to professional custom within the appraisal community.

A disclosure is not, by itself, disqualifying. An umpire who has served on prior appraisals involving one of the parties may still be acceptable to both sides once the relationship is known and considered, particularly if the prior engagements were limited and the outcomes were reached independently on their own facts. What tends to create a problem is not the existence of a past relationship but a failure to disclose it, since an omission discovered later can undermine confidence in an award even when the umpire’s actual conclusions were sound and well supported.

Because the umpire’s role depends on being accepted, or ordered by a court, as a neutral, many experienced umpires err toward over-disclosure rather than under-disclosure, listing relationships that might seem marginal so the parties can make an informed decision before the appraisal proceeds rather than after. This practice protects the integrity of the eventual award and reduces the likelihood that a signed determination will later be challenged on the grounds that the umpire was not, in fact, neutral. Disclosure standards exist to protect the process itself, not to favor either the policyholder or the insurer in how a claim is ultimately valued.

The timing of disclosure also matters. A candidate who discloses a prior relationship at the outset, before accepting the assignment, gives both parties a fair opportunity to object or to proceed with full knowledge of the circumstances. A candidate who discloses the same relationship only after being challenged, or after an award has already been signed, puts the parties in a much harder position, since unwinding a completed appraisal is far more disruptive than simply selecting a different candidate at the beginning. For this reason, many appraisal organizations and experienced practitioners treat disclosure as an ongoing obligation rather than a one-time form, updating it if a new conflict becomes apparent partway through an assignment, such as learning midstream that a party’s counsel previously retained the umpire on an unrelated matter. Some states have moved toward more formal disclosure requirements for umpires as appraisal has become a more heavily used dispute resolution mechanism, including statutory qualification standards or required affidavits addressing independence. Even where no statute applies, many umpires voluntarily adopt disclosure practices modeled on standards used for arbitrators and mediators in other contexts, since the underlying concern, protecting the parties’ confidence in a neutral decision-maker, is the same regardless of the specific dispute resolution mechanism involved. A consistent, transparent disclosure practice tends to benefit everyone in the process, since it reduces the odds that a properly reached award gets tied up later in a dispute about the umpire’s independence rather than the underlying loss.

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.