The Appraisal Clause Is Invoked: Why Silence Is Not Golden
- Joshua Friedman
- Aug 22
- 15 min read
When a dispute over the value of a property damage claim reaches an impasse, the insurance policy’s appraisal clause is often invoked. This contractual provision is designed as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism to determine the "amount of loss" more efficiently and cost-effectively than formal litigation. The common perception, often encouraged by insurance carriers, is that appraisal is a quasi-judicial process where the policyholder’s role is to simply appoint an appraiser and then passively await the panel's decision. This perception is not only wrong; it is a dangerous myth that creates a significant strategic disadvantage. The truth is that silence is not golden—it is a forfeiture of control. Proactive, strategic, and evidence-based communicating with the insurance appraisal panel through the proper channels is not just permissible; it is absolutely essential to securing a fair and just award.
The appraisal process, in theory, is intended to be a neutral and independent evaluation. However, for the uninitiated policyholder, it is a precarious path fraught with potential pitfalls. A bad appraisal award can be incredibly difficult to overturn and can prove disastrous for a policyholder's financial recovery. The stakes are simply too high to adopt a passive stance. The fundamental power imbalance inherent in the insurance industry does not disappear once the appraisal clause is invoked. Insurance carriers are "repeat players" in this arena; their adjusters, appraisers, and legal teams have deep institutional knowledge, established relationships, and a wealth of data from countless prior appraisals. The policyholder, by contrast, is almost always a novice, navigating this complex process for the first time.
Advising a policyholder to "let the process play out" without active engagement is not neutral advice; it is advice that actively benefits the insurance carrier. It allows the insurer’s systemic advantages—experience, relationships, and informational superiority—to operate unopposed on a supposedly level playing field. This article will dismantle the myth of passive participation. It will deconstruct the reality of the appraisal panel, outline the rules of engagement for permissible communication, provide a concrete playbook for substantiating your claim, and explain the final safeguards available if the process yields an unjust result.
Deconstructing the Appraisal Panel: Neutrality in Theory vs. Reality
To understand why proactive communication is vital, one must first understand the gap between the appraisal panel's theoretical structure and its practical reality. The process is defined by the policy language, which typically requires each party—the insurer and the insured—to select a "competent and impartial appraiser." These two appraisers then attempt to agree on the amount of loss. If they cannot, they call on a pre-selected "competent and disinterested umpire" to resolve their differences. An award signed by any two of these three individuals becomes binding. On its face, this structure appears balanced and designed to produce a fair outcome.
However, the reality is often far different due to a significant power imbalance and the tactics employed by some insurance carriers to manipulate this supposedly neutral process. The first challenge is the disparity in experience. As one analysis notes, "experienced party appraisers willing to work for insureds are hard to find while those who work for insurers are plentiful". Insurers have a stable of appraisers they use repeatedly, fostering familiarity and, in some cases, a dependency that can compromise true impartiality.
This inherent advantage is often compounded by specific tactics designed to improperly influence the panel and steer the outcome in the carrier’s favor. Legal commentators and policyholder advocates have documented numerous examples of such manipulation :
Controlling the "Independent" Appraiser: There are documented cases where an insurer's appointed appraiser has privately agreed with the policyholder's appraiser on a fair award amount, only to state that he could not officially sign the award until receiving approval from the carrier's inside desk adjuster. I have actively witnessed this. We had one just recently where the award fell apart and had to go to umpire because the "internal peer review" at the appraiser's firm rejected the award. This action fundamentally violates the principle of independence and reveals the appraiser is acting not as an impartial evaluator but as an extension of the insurance company or otherwise.
Restricting Evidence: In other instances, an insurer's appraiser has been instructed to rely solely on the expert reports retained by the insurance company and to disregard any reports, estimates, or evidence submitted by the policyholder's experts. This is a clear attempt to control the flow of information and prevent the panel from considering all relevant facts, thereby swaying the decision.
Weaponizing Delineation: Some carriers insist that any appraisal award be "delineated," meaning it must break down the value for every single line item. While this may seem like a call for clarity, it is often a strategy to create opportunities to "strike and refuse to pay portions of awards in order to reduce payouts" after the fact, by manufacturing coverage disputes over individual items.
These tactics reveal a critical truth: the contractual requirement for appraisers to be "impartial" or "disinterested" is the primary legal and ethical protection a policyholder has, but it is a standard that is frequently challenged in practice. When an insurer attempts to control its appraiser, the process ceases to be a neutral valuation and transforms into an adversarial proceeding that mimics litigation but lacks the formal procedural protections of a courtroom, such as discovery and cross-examination. A policyholder, therefore, cannot operate under the assumption of neutrality. They must proceed with the understanding that the insurer’s appraiser may act as an adversary, making the clear, forceful, and well-documented presentation of evidence not just helpful, but a strategic necessity for survival.
The Rules of Engagement: Permissible Advocacy vs. Prohibited Communication
Given the adversarial nature of many appraisals, understanding the rules of communication is paramount. A policyholder must know how to advocate effectively without violating the procedural rules designed to ensure fairness. The most critical rule governs what is known as ex parte communication, and it is frequently misunderstood and misused.
The Misunderstood Prohibition on Ex Parte Communication
Ex parte communication is any communication made by one party to a decision-maker without the other party being present or included. In the context of appraisal, this most importantly applies to the umpire, who serves in a quasi-judicial role. State regulations and ethical guidelines are often explicit on this point. The Texas Administrative Code, for example, states that after an umpire is selected, the umpire "may not communicate separately with either party or either party's appraiser regarding the pending appraisal unless the umpire notifies the other party and gives the other party the opportunity to participate."
This rule is the bedrock of procedural fairness, but it is often manipulated by insurers to imply that the policyholder has no right to speak at all. This is a strategic misinterpretation. The rule is not a gag order; it is a transparency mandate. The crucial language—"unless the umpire notifies the other party and gives the other party the opportunity to participate"—transforms the rule from a prohibition into a protocol. It explicitly provides a pathway for communication with the umpire, including directly from the policyholder, so long as it is done openly and with the full participation of the opposing side. This is the fundamental difference between advocacy and manipulation. Openly presenting your case in front of all parties is advocacy. Communicating in secret to gain an unfair advantage is manipulation. The rule prohibits the latter, not the former. Therefore, a policyholder has an absolute right to ensure their evidence, arguments, and perspective are heard by the entire panel, provided it is done in a properly noticed and inclusive setting.
The Proper Channel: Your Appraiser as Advocate
While the rules provide a framework for open, all-party communication, the primary and most effective channel for advocacy remains your appointed appraiser, with limitations of course. The role of a party-appointed appraiser is not to be a detached, neutral observer. While they must be "impartial" in the sense that they cannot have a direct financial stake in the outcome (e.g., working on a contingency fee) and must be open to the evidence, they are appointed to be an advocate for their client's valuation of the loss. The National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (NAPIA) correctly notes that the "main safeguard for the integrity of the appraisal system from the policyholder's perspective is the ability of their appraiser to advocate their position" to the opposing appraiser and, if necessary, to the umpire.
Ethical codes for appraisers reinforce this duty. Organizations like the Windstorm Insurance Network (WIND), Property Loss Appraiser Network (PLAN), and the Insurance Appraisal and Umpire Association (IAUA) require appraisers to be competent, act with integrity, and "decide all issues submitted for determination regarding the amount of loss." An appraiser cannot fulfill this duty of competence if they are not armed with every piece of relevant evidence, every expert report, and a complete understanding of the policyholder's position. It is the policyholder's responsibility, working with their public adjuster, to provide their appraiser with this arsenal.
The strict rules against ex parte communication, while crucial for fairness, can be twisted and used against a naive policyholder. A sophisticated insurer might leverage a policyholder's fear of procedural violations to enforce total silence, framing it as a matter of integrity. This tactic creates an information vacuum for the policyholder's appraiser, leaving them to argue a complex valuation dispute without the full context and evidentiary support they need. Meanwhile, the insurer's seasoned appraiser, who understands the unwritten rules of the game, can expertly package their own information and frame the dispute in a way that is most favorable to the carrier. This is how a rule designed to ensure fairness can become a tool of suppression. Therefore, understanding the critical distinction between prohibited ex parte contact with the umpire and permissible, robust communication with one's own appraiser is the single most important piece of strategic knowledge a policyholder can possess.
A Policyholder's Playbook: How to Systematically Substantiate Your Claim for the Panel
Theory is important, but victory in appraisal comes from execution. A policyholder and their representative, such as a professional public adjuster, must systematically build an undeniable, evidence-based case and ensure it is effectively communicated to the panel through their appointed appraiser. This is not about emotional appeals; it is about presenting cold, hard facts in a clear and compelling manner.
Assembling Your Arsenal of Evidence
The foundation of a successful appraisal is an exhaustive and well-organized body of evidence. Each piece of documentation serves a strategic purpose in validating the proposed amount of loss. Your evidence file should include:
Multiple, Detailed Contractor Estimates: Obtain line-item estimates from at least two or three reputable, local contractors who have physically inspected the property. These should detail the scope of work, material costs, and labor rates, providing a real-world basis for the valuation. If it is a specialty item such as the custom metal ridge cresting or finials on a recent appraisal, the metalworker bid came in at over $40,000, which shows just how detached Xactimate pricing may be on certain speciality trades. Have these estimates/invoices, and make sure the panel has them for review.
Expert Reports: For complex claims, independent expert reports are non-negotiable. This may include a structural engineer's report to verify causation, an industrial hygienist's protocol for mold remediation, or a report from a commercial roofing consultant to detail the extent of storm damage and the required method of repair. These reports provide authoritative, third-party validation that is difficult for an opposing appraiser or umpire to dismiss.
The Insurance Policy and Declarations Page: Your appraiser should have the complete policy to understand all applicable coverages, limits, and endorsements that define the scope of what is being appraised. As a minimum, they must have the the appraisal language itself. Failing to provide a complete policy, however, prevents the panel from completely understanding the standard of care the contract promises. A perfect example would be Green Upgrades coverage, that provides allowance for the repairs to be upgraded to eco-friendly solutions. A snapshot of the appraisal clause will not inform the panel that they need to consider the cost of solar powered attic fans that were not there before the roof was replaced. So put in the work and get them the complete policy.
Comprehensive Visual Documentation: High-resolution photographs and videos taken immediately after the loss are crucial. If pre-loss photos are available, they provide a powerful before-and-after comparison. All visual evidence should be dated and labeled.
Material Samples: When possible, retain physical samples of damaged materials, such as roofing shingles, siding, or flooring. These can be presented to the panel during their site inspection to demonstrate the quality of the original materials and the extent of the damage.
Financial Records: For claims involving business interruption or additional living expenses, meticulous financial records are essential. This includes profit and loss statements, sales receipts, bank statements, invoices for temporary relocation, and any other documents that prove the financial impact of the loss.
The Art of Presentation
Gathering evidence is only half the battle. It must be organized and presented in a format that is easy for the appraisal panel to digest. A disorganized pile of papers creates confusion and undermines credibility. Work with your public adjuster to create a professional appraisal submission, often in a well-organized binder or a hyperlinked digital file. This submission should include:
A clear table of contents.
A concise summary of the dispute and your position on the amount of loss.
Tabbed sections for each category of evidence (e.g., Estimates, Expert Reports, Photos).
Highlighted key findings in lengthy reports.
This level of organization does more than just present the facts; it sends a powerful message that you are serious, meticulous, and have built your valuation on a foundation of solid proof.
Your Appraisal Evidence Checklist
To ensure no critical element is overlooked, use a structured checklist to guide your evidence-gathering process.
The Appraiser's Dilemma: Why You Are Your Own Final Advocate
Even with the best evidence, it is critical to remember the human element of the appraisal process. Your appraiser is hired to be competent and impartial, but they are not infallible—they can miss things. More importantly, they operate within a small, interconnected professional ecosystem. The opposing appraiser and the umpire are colleagues they may work with on dozens of other claims throughout the year. This creates an unavoidable, inherent conflict of interest that every policyholder must recognize.
Your appraiser's primary duty is to the integrity of the process and to providing a competent valuation of the loss; they do not have a fiduciary duty to your personal financial interests . This means there may come a point where your appraiser has to decide between aggressively advocating for the final, most contentious points of your claim and preserving a long-term working relationship with an umpire or opposing appraiser. For them, this is job number 8453 in a long career where they can't afford to hack off somebody important and make you the last claim they ever appraise. For you, this is your property, your business, and your financial future. The stakes are not the same.
Because of this reality, you (and your public adjuster) must be your own final advocate. Do not be afraid to ensure your most critical points are heard directly by the entire panel. If your public adjuster is afraid to advocate for you during the appraisal process, and they are still expecting 15% or more of the outcome, find a better advocate. Advocacy means preparing clear, concise, and evidence-based correspondence and, with the help of your public adjuster, submitting it to your appraiser, the opposing appraiser, and the umpire simultaneously. By ensuring all communication is transparent and includes all parties, you are not engaging in prohibited ex parte communication. You are simply making certain that your voice—the voice of the person whose life is most affected by the outcome—is not lost in translation or compromised by the unwritten rules of professional courtesy.
Navigating Pushback and Bad Faith Tactics
Armed with a well-documented case, your appraiser is positioned to counter the manipulation tactics discussed earlier.
If the insurer's appraiser refuses to consider your expert's report: This is an improper attempt to control the evidence. Instruct your appraiser to formally submit the report to the umpire as part of the "differences" between the two appraisers. This forces the umpire to review the document and makes the refusal part of the official record.
If the insurer's appraiser claims they need carrier approval: This is direct evidence that the appraiser is not "impartial" as required by the policy. Your appraiser should document this communication immediately (e.g., in a follow-up email) and raise the issue of the appraiser's lack of independence with the umpire.
If the panel attempts to decide coverage: Your appraiser must immediately and firmly remind the panel that their authority is strictly limited to determining the "amount of loss." Any discussion of whether a particular item is covered by the policy is outside their scope. An award that decides coverage is an award made "without authority" and is subject to being overturned by a court.
The Final Safeguard: Overturning an Unfair Appraisal Award
While the goal is to win a fair award through the process itself, policyholders must know that an unjust outcome is not necessarily the end of the road. Courts grant significant deference to appraisal awards and will indulge "every reasonable presumption" to sustain them. Overturning an award is a high legal bar to clear. However, it is not impossible. An award can be challenged and vacated by a court if it is proven to be the product of a fundamentally flawed process.
Across most jurisdictions, there are three primary legal grounds for setting aside an appraisal award :
The Award Was Made Without Authority: This occurs when the panel oversteps its contractually limited role. The most common example is when the panel makes a determination of coverage or causation rather than sticking strictly to the valuation of the loss. If the appraisers decide what is covered instead of just how much the covered damage is worth, they have acted without authority.
The Award Was the Result of Fraud, Accident, or Mistake: Fraud involves intentional deception, such as a party lying about the extent of damage. A mistake, in the legal sense, typically means the award as written does not actually reflect the panel's true intent due to a clerical error or a misunderstanding of a key fact.
The Award Was Not Made in Substantial Compliance with the Policy Terms: This is a broad category that often provides the strongest basis for a challenge. It means the process itself violated the rules set forth in the insurance policy. The most powerful argument under this ground is a lack of impartiality on the part of an appraiser or the umpire.
Bias or a conflict of interest can poison the entire process and is a recognized basis for vacating an award. Courts have set aside awards where it was shown that an umpire developed a conflict of interest during the appraisal by joining a firm that worked for the insurance carrier in the case. In another case, an award was challenged because the insured's appraiser had a direct financial stake in the outcome, with his compensation percentage increasing if the award surpassed a certain threshold, which the court found to be clear evidence of bias.
Crucially, the knowledge of how to overturn an award is most powerful when used proactively, not just reactively. A policyholder's team—whether a public adjuster or a property damage lawyer—that understands these legal grounds from the outset can monitor the appraisal process for any such misconduct. If the opposing appraiser reveals they are taking direction from the carrier, or if the umpire begins to opine on coverage issues, these actions should be documented immediately in writing. This contemporaneous documentation serves two vital purposes. First, it can act as a deterrent, potentially correcting the panel's behavior in real-time by putting them on notice. Second, it builds a strong evidentiary record that can be used later in court to prove the award was the result of misfeasance, making a motion to vacate the award far more likely to succeed. This transforms legal knowledge from a post-mortem remedy into a powerful tool for managing the process itself.
In Closing, Take Control of the Narrative.
The insurance appraisal process is not a passive exercise in valuation; it is a dynamic and often adversarial environment where the unprepared are punished and the strategic are rewarded. The myth of the perfectly neutral panel, where a policyholder can simply submit their claim and hope for the best, is a fiction that serves the interests of the insurance carrier. The insurer's inherent advantages in experience, resources, and relationships can only be countered by a proactive, diligent, and evidence-based approach.
Taking control of your claim's narrative is the only path to a just outcome. This means meticulously assembling an arsenal of proof, organizing it into a compelling presentation, and communicating it effectively through a competent and prepared appraiser. It means understanding the rules of engagement, knowing how to counter bad-faith tactics, and documenting every step of the process. One or more parties may find your involvement distasteful. Tough cookies. Silence cedes the battlefield, and you have one chance here for other people you can't control to get this right. No pressure! Proactive communication, backed by irrefutable evidence, allows you to define the value of your loss and compel the panel to recognize it.
If your claim is headed for appraisal, you are facing a high-stakes process where the outcome will have a lasting financial impact. Your insurance policy is a promise of recovery, and the appraisal process should be a mechanism to fulfill that promise, not to diminish it. If you are ready to shift from a reactive position to a proactive strategy, contact Friedman & Associates. Our team of expert public adjusters understands the nuances of the insurance appraisal clause and has the experience to guide you through this complex process, ensuring your voice is heard and your claim is valued fairly.
References
Biller, S. M. (n.d.). Interference with the appraisal process: What an insurance company cannot do. The Biller Law Group. Retrieved from https://www.billerlawgroup.com/interference-with-the-appraisal-process-what-an-insurance-company-cannot-do
Cooper & Scully, P.C. (n.d.). Appraisals: The process and protection from contractual and extra-contractual claims. Retrieved from(https://www.cooperscully.com/uploads/file/Appraisals%20Full%20-%20FLS.pdf)
Goodman, B. S. (2019, April 1). NAPIA white paper on the appraisal process. National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters. Retrieved from(https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/NAPIA-Appraisal-White-Paper-04.01.19-1.pdf)
Held, J. S. (n.d.). The appraisal process: An outline for making awards useful & final. J.S. Held. Retrieved from https://www.jsheld.com/insights/articles/the-appraisal-process-an-outline-for-making-awards-useful-final
Insurance Appraisal and Umpire Association. (n.d.). Code of ethics. Retrieved from https://iaua.wildapricot.org/Code-of-Ethics
International Society of Appraisers. (n.d.). Code of ethics. Retrieved from https://www.isa-appraisers.org/about/policies/code-of-ethics
Merlin, C. (2023, May 15). Should an umpire have ex parte communications with an appraiser? Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog. Retrieved from https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/blog/should-an-umpire-have-ex-parte-communications-with-an-appraiser/
Perez, V. (2015, July 12). Setting aside an appraisal award for bias or conflict of interest. Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog. Retrieved from https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/blog/setting-aside-an-appraisal-award-for-bias-or-conflict-of-interest/
Salpietra, S. (2022, May 19). Setting aside an appraisal award. Doyen Sebesta & Krása, LLP. Retrieved from https://www.dcclawfirm.com/blog/setting-aside-an-appraisal-award/
Smith, W. R. (2018). Appraisal in Texas first-party insurance claims: A process in need of a tune up. St. Mary's Law Journal, 50(1), 227-285. Retrieved from https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal/vol50/iss1/5/
Ticer, J. D. (n.d.). The appraisal process. Ticer Law Firm. Retrieved from https://www.ticerlawfirm.com/insurance-coverage/the-appraisal-process/
Trecek, D. J. (n.d.). The manipulation of the appraisal process. Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog. Retrieved from https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/blog/the-manipulation-of-the-appraisal-process/
Windstorm Insurance Network. (n.d.). Ethical rules for appraisers in insurance appraisals. Retrieved from https://windnetwork.com/certified-professionals/ethical-rules-for-appraisers-in-insurance-appraisals/
Texas Administrative Code, Title 28, §5.4220. (2024). Appraisal Process – Prohibited Communications. Retrieved from http://txrules.elaws.us/rule/title28_chapter5_sec.5.4220
Comments