The Myth That Appraisal Is Only for Large Claims

Browse the full Resources Index

A persistent assumption among policyholders and even some claims professionals holds that appraisal is reserved for catastrophic losses, total fire losses, or major commercial claims running into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nothing in the standard appraisal clause supports that assumption. The clause found in most homeowners and commercial property policies applies whenever the insurer and the policyholder disagree on the amount of loss, regardless of whether that loss is ten thousand dollars or ten million dollars. There is no dollar threshold written into the mechanism itself. A relatively modest single-family roof claim and a large multi-building commercial claim both qualify for the same clause, provided the same underlying condition is present: a genuine, unresolved disagreement about how much the loss is worth.

Where the myth likely comes from is a reasonable economic observation rather than any actual rule. Appraisal involves fees, typically an hourly or per diem rate for each party’s appraiser and, if the two appraisers cannot agree, a shared fee for an umpire who breaks the impasse. On a very small disputed amount, the cost of invoking appraisal can approach or even exceed the size of the disagreement itself, which understandably discourages its use for minor differences. A dispute over a few hundred dollars in gutter pricing on an otherwise agreed claim is a poor candidate for appraisal simply on cost grounds, not because the clause does not technically permit it. This is simply an economic reality of the process rather than a rule anyone enforces, and it applies equally regardless of which party is considering whether to invoke the clause on a small disputed amount.

That calculation changes considerably as the disputed amount grows, even on claims that are not, in an absolute sense, large. A roof replacement dispute in the range of fifteen to thirty thousand dollars, common enough after a significant regional hailstorm, can justify appraisal fees that represent a small fraction of the amount actually in dispute, particularly when negotiation has already stalled and shows no sign of moving. The relevant comparison is not the total claim size against some abstract large-claim threshold, but the size of the specific disagreement against the anticipated cost of resolving it through appraisal.

It is also worth noting that appraisal clauses are frequently invoked on residential claims of entirely ordinary size, roof and siding disputes following hail and wind events being among the more common examples nationally, alongside larger commercial property disputes involving multiple buildings or business interruption components. Appraisers who handle these claims regularly see the full range, from modest residential disputes to substantial commercial losses, within the same practice. A single hailstorm moving through a Minnesota county can generate appraisal demands on properties ranging from a modest rambler with a straightforward roof dispute to a commercial strip mall with a complicated multi-building scope, all under the same basic clause language.

The decision to invoke appraisal ultimately comes down to whether a genuine disagreement on value exists and whether the size of that disagreement justifies the cost and time of the process, a calculation each policyholder and insurer makes for their own specific claim rather than something governed by a fixed dollar minimum written anywhere in the policy or the process itself.

General education only: the appraisal process described here can vary by state and policy language, and nothing in this article is legal advice.

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