Who Breaks the Tie? Insurance Appraisal Umpire Rules in Eight States (2026)

In more than 25 years of handling property losses after disasters across the country, I have watched the same appraisal clause produce very different results from one state to the next. The clause itself is short. Each side appoints an appraiser, the two appraisers choose an umpire, and an award signed by any two of the three sets the amount of loss. When the appraisers cannot agree on the number, the umpire’s signature decides it. When they cannot agree on the umpire, a court does. What happens at each of those steps depends on the policy wording and on the state where the property sits, and the differences across Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, Nebraska and Iowa are larger than many claim professionals and attorneys expect.

Why appraisal matters more in 2026

Appraisal is being used more often, at least where it is measured. The Texas Department of Insurance publishes detailed appraisal data, and its 2024 data call found that residential property appraisal demands rose from 4,909 claims reported in the first study year to 7,726 in the third. The share of payable claims going to appraisal nearly doubled over the same period, from 1.18 percent to 2.30 percent. An umpire was used in about 16 percent of completed residential appraisals, and insurers’ average appraisal expense was $2,589 without an umpire and $4,110 with one.¹ An umpire also adds time. In the department’s figures, about three-quarters of residential awards without an umpire were made within 120 days of the demand, while it took 278 days for three-quarters of awards involving an umpire to be made.⁶

The legal ground is also moving. On May 8, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas compelled appraisal of a water loss at a Dallas commercial warehouse, holding that disputes over coverage, causation and the insurer’s claim handling did not make appraisal improper at the outset.² Texas has also enacted Senate Bill 458, which requires insurers writing residential property and personal auto policies to include an appraisal provision.³ In Colorado, a 2026 bill that would have required binding appraisal in homeowner’s policies, with standards for appraisers and umpires, was postponed indefinitely by a House committee on March 25, 2026.⁴

The losses behind these disputes are concentrated in the same region. State Farm reported paying more than $5.6 billion in hail claims nationally in 2025, led by Texas at about $1.4 billion and followed by Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin and Oklahoma. Arkansas was among the states new to that company’s top ten in 2025.⁵

The rules at a glance

The 15-day clock

Most property policies give the appraisers a short window to agree on an umpire. Oklahoma writes the full sequence into statute through its standard fire policy. Each party selects a competent and disinterested appraiser within 20 days of a written demand. If the appraisers do not agree on a competent and disinterested umpire within 15 days, either party may ask a district judge in the county where the loss occurred to select one, after notice by certified mail. Each side pays its own appraiser, and the parties split the umpire’s expense equally.⁷

Texas regulators have proposed a similar structure for residential policies under SB 458. The proposed rules would require appraisers and umpires to be competent by training or experience, independent from the parties and disinterested in the outcome. For dwelling losses, they would also need to be an adjuster or public adjuster, an engineer or architect, or someone with comparable experience. The appraisers would have 15 days to choose an umpire before either party could ask a county or district court to appoint one. The proposal would apply to policies delivered, issued or renewed on or after Sept. 1, 2026, and its final status should be confirmed before relying on it.⁶

What a court looks for in an umpire

When appraisers deadlock, the policy usually says only that a court will choose. A 2024 case from the District of Kansas shows how one court filled that gap. In L & M Auto Repair, LLC v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co., a commercial roof claim, the magistrate judge first disqualified the policyholder’s appraiser under a policy requiring a “competent and impartial” appraiser, based on undisputed evidence of a close, ongoing relationship with the contractor whose estimate was in dispute. When the appraisers later could not agree on an umpire, the court weighed three factors both sides accepted: experience with the type of loss, lack of bias, and proximity and availability. It recommended the candidate with broader appraisal and umpire experience and said the umpire should resolve the differences between the two appraisals rather than perform a third appraisal of his own.⁸

The choice of court can be contested too. In Sentry Insurance v. Morgan, a Texas case in which the appraisers could not agree on an umpire within the policy’s 15 days, the insurer asked a federal court to appoint one. The Fifth Circuit held in 2024 that the amount in controversy was the roughly $349,657 the insured had demanded, enough for federal jurisdiction, and sent the case back for the trial court to address the insured’s remaining objections.¹⁹

When coverage is in dispute

The sharpest divide in the region is over what happens when the insurer disputes coverage. The Texas Supreme Court’s 2026 decision allows appraisal to go forward first, leaving coverage questions for later.² Missouri’s Court of Appeals took a narrower view in Brewer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., a storm claim involving a rental property. It reversed a trial court’s judgment appointing an umpire, holding that appraisal applies when the parties disagree only about the amount of loss, and that where the insurer raises significant questions about which repairs are covered, the court must decide those questions. The court also pointed to Missouri’s statute excluding insurance contracts from its arbitration act.¹¹ A claim in Dallas and a claim in Kansas City, Missouri, can therefore take very different paths from the same policy language.

Arkansas adds a further wrinkle. Its insurance code voids any policy provision that deprives the insured of a jury trial on questions of fact, and the state insurance department has long taken the position that appraisal clauses must be optional and non-binding.¹² Applying that statute, a federal court in Fayetteville held in 2015 that a non-voluntary, binding appraisal provision was unenforceable.¹³ Appraisal still happens in Arkansas, but parties there should read the clause closely and confirm whether both sides have agreed to be bound.

How far a party appraiser may lean

The word in the policy often decides how much advocacy is allowed. In Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Gaworski, a St. Louis hail claim under a policy requiring a “competent and disinterested” appraiser, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that an appraiser need not be entirely impartial and may advocate for the party that appointed him, but that a direct financial interest in the outcome would disqualify him.¹⁰ The Iowa Supreme Court has likewise recognized that party-appointed appraisers act as advocates for the side that chose them, yet it found an appraiser who had a contingency arrangement and a long, ongoing relationship with the insured was not disinterested.¹⁶ Colorado reached a stricter result under a policy requiring an “impartial” appraiser. In Owners Insurance Co. v. Dakota Station II Condominium Ass’n, the Colorado Supreme Court held that such an appraiser may not advocate for either party. It declined to hold that a contingency fee makes an appraiser partial as a matter of law, but it noted concern about the incentives those fees create.¹⁴ Texas courts have been similarly wary of pay tied to the result; in Spring Creek, an appraiser’s extra compensation if the award exceeded a set amount raised a fact issue on impartiality.⁹ Whatever the standard for party appraisers, the umpire has no side to take.

What the award decides, and what comes after

Once an award is signed, it is hard to undo. In Martinique Properties, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, involving hail and wind damage to Omaha apartments, the owner argued that the appraisal award relied on incorrect figures and measurements and overlooked some buildings. The Eighth Circuit, reviewing the award under the Federal Arbitration Act, held that those were challenges to the merits that a court has no authority to reconsider, and it affirmed dismissal.¹⁵ Minnesota allows the panel to decide more than price. In Quade v. Secura Insurance, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that determining the amount of loss can require appraisers to separate covered wind damage from pre-existing wear, leaving questions of liability to the courts.¹⁷ And in March 2026, in Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Rymer Companies, the Eighth Circuit applied Minnesota law to a tornado claim on a mall roof. The panel’s unanimous award covered roof repair without saying whether it included the roof surface. When asked to clarify, the umpire joined the insurer’s appraiser in saying it did not. The umpire later testified differently in a deposition, but because no one moved to vacate the award, the court held that the testimony could not change it.¹⁸ For an umpire, the lesson is plain: the award must say exactly what it covers.

When the property is on tribal land

My work in federal Indian law adds one more question that most appraisal clauses never anticipated. Policies typically send umpire disputes to a court in the state or county where the property sits. When the insured property belongs to a tribal nation or one of its enterprises, which court may act, and whether the tribe has agreed to that court’s jurisdiction, can depend on the policy language and the tribe’s sovereign status. Counsel on either side should settle that question before the 15-day window runs.

What this means on a file

The parties are best served by proposing umpire candidates early, well before the appraisers reach an impasse, and by asking each candidate for a written disclosure of past work for either party, their counsel, the contractor and the other appraiser. Experience should match the loss, because a commercial water loss, a fire and a hail claim call for different expertise. Fees should be hourly or flat, since pay that rises with the award invites a challenge to the award itself. If a court petition becomes necessary, offering more than one qualified candidate and addressing experience, bias and availability directly gives the court what it needs to decide quickly. And before any of that, both sides should confirm that appraisal is available at all, given the coverage questions in Missouri and the binding-clause rule in Arkansas.

Common questions

Who chooses the umpire if the appraisers cannot agree?

Under most policies, either party may ask a court to appoint one after the appraisers fail to agree, often within 15 days. Oklahoma’s statute sends the request to a district judge in the county where the loss occurred, and Texas’s proposed rules point to a county or district court where the property is located.^6,7

Can an appraiser or umpire be paid a percentage of the award?

It is risky. Texas and Iowa courts have treated pay tied to the size of the award as a sign that an appraiser is not disinterested, and the Colorado Supreme Court has voiced concern about such fees while declining to make them disqualifying as a matter of law.^9,14,16

Is appraisal binding in Arkansas?

Not when it is forced on the insured. Arkansas law voids policy terms that take away the insured’s right to a jury on questions of fact, and a federal court applied that rule to hold a non-voluntary, binding appraisal provision unenforceable.^12,13

Can a signed appraisal award be challenged?

Only on narrow grounds. The Eighth Circuit has refused to revisit an award over alleged errors in figures and has held that an umpire’s later testimony cannot change what a written award says.^15,18

How ORA can help

Okla Risk Advisors provides umpire and party appraiser services, for policyholders or insurers, on residential and commercial property losses in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa and nationwide, from Dallas and Oklahoma City to Kansas City, Omaha, Des Moines, Little Rock and Denver. Every engagement begins with a written conflict disclosure, and fees are hourly or flat, never tied to the award. To propose ORA as an umpire or discuss a file, email chrischambers@oklariskadvisors.com or use the contact page. The firm also provides expert witness and claim file review services to either side of a dispute.

About the author

Chris Chambers is an Executive General Adjuster with more than 25 years of property and catastrophe claims experience and has deployed to many of the large-scale U.S. disasters since 2004. He holds a Texas designated home state adjuster license, with licenses in Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and New Mexico, and is NFIP certified at all four levels and FEMA IS-318.b certified. He holds a Master of Legal Studies in Indigenous Peoples Law from the University of Oklahoma, is a member of the Oklahoma Indian Bar Association, and is the founder of Okla Risk Advisors.

This article is general information, not legal advice. Policy language controls, and the law in each state can change. Authorities are current as of October 22, 2026.

Sources

1. Tex. Dep’t of Ins., 2024 Appraisal Experience Data Call Report (Dec. 2024). State agency report
2. In re ACE American Insurance Co., No. 25-0461 (Tex. May 8, 2026). State supreme court
3. Tex. S.B. 458, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025); House Committee Report, Bill Analysis. State statute
4. Colo. H.B. 26-1247, House Business Affairs and Labor Committee vote to postpone indefinitely (Mar. 25, 2026). State bill, not enacted
5. State Farm, State Farm Paid Over $5.6 Billion in Hail Claims in 2025 (Apr. 21, 2026); Claims Journal (Apr. 23, 2026). Insurer release; trade press
6. Proposed 28 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 5.9800 to 5.9806 (Tex. Dep’t of Ins., proposal signed Apr. 23, 2026). Proposed state regulation
7. Okla. Stat. tit. 36, § 4803(G). State statute
8. L & M Auto Repair, LLC v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co., No. 23-CV-1203 (D. Kan.): memorandum and order (Jan. 17, 2024); report and recommendation (May 10, 2024). Federal court applying state law
9. General Star Indemnity Co. v. Spring Creek Village Apartments Phase V, Inc., 152 S.W.3d 733 (Tex. App. 2004), as discussed in Claims Journal. State appellate court
10. Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Gaworski, 552 S.W.3d 180 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). State appellate court
11. Brewer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. WD84331 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2022), summarized by The Missouri Bar and Knight Nicastro; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.350. State appellate court; state statute
12. Ark. Code Ann. § 23-79-203; Ark. Ins. Dep’t Bulletin 19-89 (July 21, 1989). State statute; state agency bulletin
13. Simmons Food, Inc. v. Industrial Risk Insurers, No. 5:13-CV-05204, 2015 WL 12912443 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 19, 2015). Federal court applying state law
14. Owners Insurance Co. v. Dakota Station II Condominium Ass’n, 2019 CO 65, 443 P.3d 47. State supreme court
15. Martinique Properties, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 21-3561 (8th Cir. Mar. 1, 2023). Federal appellate court
16. Central Life Insurance Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 466 N.W.2d 257 (Iowa 1991), as discussed by Robins Kaplan. State supreme court
17. Quade v. Secura Insurance, 814 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2012), as reported by Claims Journal. State supreme court
18. Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Rymer Companies, LLC, No. 24-3356 (8th Cir. Mar. 27, 2026). Federal court applying state law
19. Sentry Insurance v. Morgan, No. 23-10888 (5th Cir. May 7, 2024). Federal appellate court