Umpire Selection Lists and How Panels Use Them

Browse the full Resources Index

Two party-appointed appraisers do not always agree quickly on who should serve as umpire, and when they cannot reach agreement on their own, many policies and, in some states, statutes provide a fallback mechanism involving a formal selection list. Under this approach, each side’s appraiser, or sometimes a neutral third party such as a court or an organization named in the policy, compiles a list of candidates, and a structured elimination process, often alternating strikes between the two lists, narrows the field down to a single name.

The mechanics of these lists vary depending on which authority governs the process. Some states have adopted statutory procedures specifying exactly how an umpire must be selected when the two appraisers reach an impasse, sometimes involving a local court making the appointment directly from a submitted list. Other selection processes are entirely a matter of the policy’s own language or of an agreement reached between the two appraisers at the time of impasse, without any court involvement at all. Industry organizations and professional associations sometimes maintain rosters of qualified umpires that appraisers can draw from when compiling a list, though inclusion on such a roster is not itself a guarantee of selection for any particular claim. When a court is asked to appoint an umpire from a submitted list, the judge typically has no independent knowledge of the individual candidates and relies on the information the parties provide, which is part of why a clearly documented list, with a brief description of each candidate’s relevant background, tends to move through that process more smoothly.

A well-constructed candidate list typically includes individuals with relevant experience, such as prior umpire assignments, a background in construction estimating or adjusting, and no current or recent financial relationship with either party or either party’s appraiser that would compromise the disinterested standard most policies require. Appraisers compiling a list often research a candidate’s history, including whether they have served as an umpire on similar claims and whether their prior awards demonstrate the kind of careful, evidence-based reasoning the role calls for.

The strike process itself, once a joint list is assembled, is usually straightforward: each appraiser removes names alternately until one remains, with the order of who strikes first sometimes determined by coin flip or by whichever party is compiling the list under the applicable procedure. This mechanism is designed to produce a result neither appraiser can unilaterally control, since each side retains the ability to eliminate candidates they view as unsuitable without needing the other side’s agreement on any single name. Some appraisers exchange short written rationales for their strikes and others do not, and neither approach is required by most policies, since the mechanism itself, rather than any accompanying explanation, is what carries the procedural weight.

Selection lists exist to solve a practical problem, an impasse between two appraisers who cannot agree directly, and the process is generally viewed as successful when it produces an umpire both sides can work with, even if neither side would have chosen that individual as their first preference. The underlying goal, preserving a fair and workable path to a neutral third panel member, is what the mechanism is built around.

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 is a working property insurance appraiser and umpire based in Minnesota, serving clients nationwide. Contact Appraisal Resolution.