Browse the full Resources Index
The umpire’s role in a property insurance appraisal is unlike either of the two party-appraisers who select them. Where each appraiser is chosen by and reports to one side of the dispute, the umpire is selected by those two appraisers, or by a court when they cannot agree, specifically to break deadlocks on points the appraisers cannot resolve between themselves. That position in the middle carries a distinct set of ethical obligations. An umpire does not represent either the policyholder or the carrier, has no ongoing loyalty to either party’s appraiser, and approaches each disputed item as a question of fact to be answered on the evidence in front of them, not as a compromise to be split down the middle for the sake of appearing balanced.
Independence in practice means an umpire discloses any prior relationship with either party or either appraiser before accepting the role, avoids private conversations with one appraiser that exclude the other, and bases decisions on inspection findings, applicable building codes, manufacturer specifications, and documented costs rather than on which side presented its case more persuasively. In a dispute over whether hail impacts on a metal roof are functional damage or cosmetic, for example, the umpire’s task is to evaluate the physical evidence against recognized testing standards and industry guidance, not to weigh which appraiser argued the point with more confidence.
Ex parte communication is one of the more sensitive issues umpires face. A phone call or email exchanged with only one appraiser, even about a scheduling matter, can create an appearance problem if it is not shared with the other side. Most experienced umpires copy both appraisers on all substantive communication and decline to discuss the merits of a disputed item with either party alone. This habit protects the umpire’s credibility as much as it protects the parties’ confidence in the eventual result.
An umpire’s written decision, when one is required, should explain the reasoning behind each disputed item clearly enough that either party can understand why a particular figure or scope item was chosen. A decision that simply states a number without explanation leaves both sides guessing and does little to support the legitimacy of a process the parties agreed to use in the first place.
Procedural fairness extends to how an umpire manages the mechanics of a case, not just the substance of disputed items. Setting inspection dates that reasonably accommodate both appraisers, sharing deadlines for submitting supporting documentation evenly, and applying the same standard of proof to arguments from either side are all part of the role. An umpire who allows one appraiser extra time to gather evidence while holding the other to a strict deadline undermines the process regardless of how sound the eventual decision turns out to be. Consistency in procedure, applied evenly from the first communication to the final award, is what allows both parties to accept an umpire’s decision as legitimate even when it does not favor their side.
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.