The Myth That the Carrier Chooses the Umpire

Browse the full Resources Index

A belief that surfaces often, on both sides of a claim, is that the insurance company gets to pick the umpire who will eventually decide a disputed appraisal. It is not accurate, and the confusion is understandable given how often people first meet the word umpire in the context of a sport where one side does not choose the referee, either. In property insurance appraisal, the process is structured so that neither party selects the umpire alone.

The typical appraisal clause found in a homeowners or commercial property policy calls for each party to name its own competent, disinterested appraiser. The policyholder picks one appraiser, the carrier picks another. Those two appraisers then confer and select a third person, the umpire, together. If the two appraisers cannot agree on an umpire within the timeframe the policy specifies, either party can ask a court, and in some states a designated official or organization, to appoint one. In no properly run appraisal does a single party unilaterally seat the umpire.

Part of what fuels the myth is that carriers, because they handle more claims and more appraisals over time, often have a working familiarity with several appraisers who might serve as umpire, and they may propose names first simply because they move quickly. A policyholder appraiser is free to reject any proposed candidate and offer alternatives. The exchange of names is a negotiation between two appraisers, not an appointment made by an insurer. When the process works as intended, the umpire is a person both appraisers view as capable of hearing the disagreement and prior work history with either party is scrutinized before an umpire accepts an assignment.

There is also a related misunderstanding worth addressing directly: that the umpire works for whichever party proposed his or her name first. An umpire’s obligation runs to the appraisal process itself, not to the appraiser or party who first mentioned the name. Reputable umpires disclose prior relationships with either appraiser or either party, and they decline assignments where a genuine conflict exists. Professional organizations that maintain appraiser rosters, along with state insurance regulators in many jurisdictions, publish guidance on how disinterestedness should be evaluated before someone accepts an umpire role.

Understanding this piece of the mechanics matters because appraisal only works when both appraisers, and eventually the umpire, are seen by all parties as capable of an independent judgment. A policyholder who believes the umpire is effectively picked by the other side may distrust an outcome that was, in fact, reached through a mutual selection process with a judicial fallback. Clear expectations at the outset of an engagement, including a plain explanation of how umpire selection actually works, tend to reduce that kind of confusion later in a claim. The selection process itself typically unfolds over a series of written exchanges rather than a single conversation. One appraiser proposes a candidate, often with a short summary of that person’s background and any prior claims work, and the other appraiser responds with either agreement or a counter-proposal. It is not unusual for three or four names to be discussed before both appraisers settle on someone they consider suitably experienced and free of relevant conflicts. Some state statutes and many policy forms set an outer time limit, often measured in weeks, after which either party may petition a court to appoint an umpire if the two appraisers remain at an impasse, which keeps the process from stalling indefinitely over a single disagreement about who should serve.

This article offers general education on the appraisal process. Nothing here is legal advice, and state law and policy language govern each claim.

Russ Lis is an independent property insurance appraiser and umpire in Minnesota who serves clients nationwide. Contact Appraisal Resolution.