Browse the full Resources Index
An attorney representing a policyholder or a public adjuster working on a homeowner’s behalf is expected to advocate, to present the facts and arguments that support their client’s position as persuasively as ethics allow. An appraiser operating under a policy’s appraisal clause occupies a different role entirely, even though each appraiser in a two-appraiser panel is selected by one of the parties. The appraiser’s obligation is to form an independent, competent opinion of the actual cash value or replacement cost of the loss based on evidence and applicable standards, not to construct the strongest possible case for whichever side is paying the invoice.
This distinction matters most in the gray areas of a claim, where reasonable professionals can disagree. Consider a claim involving hail damage to an asphalt shingle roof in a Twin Cities suburb. An advocate’s task might be to gather every piece of evidence supporting a full roof replacement, or conversely every argument supporting a repair-only approach, and present it in the most favorable light. An appraiser’s task, by contrast, is to inspect the roof, apply recognized damage assessment methods such as those described in industry testing standards, and reach a conclusion that would hold up regardless of which party selected the appraiser in the first place.
Selection by one party does not create an obligation to that party’s preferred outcome. This is a distinction some newer appraisers struggle with, particularly if they come from backgrounds in claims advocacy or public adjusting where representing one side’s interests is the job. The appraisal role requires setting that instinct aside and evaluating the physical evidence and applicable cost data on their own terms, even when the resulting opinion does not match what the appraiser’s own client hoped to hear going in.
Client pressure during an active engagement can test this distinction in real time. A policyholder or a carrier representative who calls partway through an appraisal to ask how things are looking, or to suggest a particular figure would be well received, puts the appraiser in a position that requires a clear, consistent response: the appraisal reflects the evidence, and the client will see the reasoning in the final scope or testimony rather than in a preview shaped by what they hope to hear. Appraisers who set this expectation at the start of an engagement, in the written agreement or in an initial conversation, generally find that clients respect the boundary once they understand it is applied consistently rather than selectively. This same clarity extends to how an appraiser writes a final report, describing what was measured and why a particular conclusion follows from it, rather than framing the document as a brief written to persuade a reader toward a predetermined outcome.
Clients sometimes express frustration when their appraiser reaches a conclusion that does not fully support their position, but that outcome is itself an indication the process is functioning as intended. An appraiser whose findings always happen to align entirely with the party who hired them has likely drifted from appraisal into advocacy, whether or not that shift was intentional.
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.