The Myth That the Umpire Splits the Difference

Browse the full Resources Index

Few misconceptions about the appraisal process are as widespread as the belief that an umpire simply averages the two appraisers’ numbers to reach a final figure. It is an understandable assumption, since the umpire’s role only comes into play when the two party-appointed appraisers cannot agree, and splitting a disagreement down the middle sounds like a natural way to resolve a stalemate. It is not, however, how the role actually functions under most appraisal clauses or under the case law that has developed around them. Courts in several states have specifically addressed this question over the years, generally holding that an umpire is expected to exercise independent judgment on the evidence presented rather than perform a mechanical calculation between two submitted numbers.

An umpire’s job is to review the evidence, inspect the property when appropriate, and form an independent judgment about the value of each disputed item, generally reaching a decision that agrees with one appraiser’s figure, the other appraiser’s figure, or a figure somewhere between the two that the umpire arrives at through independent analysis rather than simple arithmetic averaging. Once the umpire reaches a conclusion on an item, that conclusion becomes binding when it matches either the policyholder’s appraiser’s figure or the insurer’s appraiser’s figure, since most clauses state that any figure agreed to by two of the three panel members becomes the award. If the umpire’s independently reached figure does not match either appraiser exactly, the umpire’s figure combined with agreement from one appraiser typically forms the award for that item. This process usually plays out item by item across a disputed scope of repair rather than as a single lump-sum figure, meaning an umpire might agree with the policyholder’s appraiser on one line item and the insurer’s appraiser on another, based on the specific evidence supporting each.

This distinction matters because it shapes how each appraiser approaches the process from the outset. An appraiser who assumes the umpire will simply average the two positions has an incentive to submit an inflated or deflated starting figure, expecting the midpoint to land closer to their actual target. An appraiser who understands that the umpire is independently evaluating the evidence has every incentive to present an accurate, well-documented figure from the start, since a position that cannot be defended on its own merits is unlikely to persuade an umpire conducting a genuine independent review.

In practice, umpires examine the same categories of evidence that inform any competent estimate: photographs, measurements, test squares, manufacturer specifications, comparable pricing, and applicable building code requirements relevant to the repair. A well-supported figure from either appraiser, backed by clear documentation and sound methodology, carries weight with an umpire regardless of which side presented it. A figure lacking that support is less likely to be adopted, even if it happens to be closer to some midpoint between the two original positions.

The practical result of how umpires actually work is that appraisal rewards accuracy and documentation on both sides rather than rewarding whichever party stakes out the more extreme initial position, which is precisely the opposite of what the splitting-the-difference myth would predict.

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.