Why Does the Right to Appraisal Process Take So Long?

by Justin Petty

Let’s dive right in…

Question:

I am the manager at a Northeast Texas repair facility, and I know the Right to Appraisal process is a powerful tool that is being increasingly utilized by our customers. These repair disputes seem to take forever to resolve, and I want to know the main problems that cause these appraisals to drag on. Please tell me. What are they?!

Now that is a question I could probably write 50 pages about, but I won’t.

There are always going to be problems, but knowing which ones you are likely to face can certainly help move the process along. I can hear the frustration in the shop manager’s question, and I have to admit that the appraisal process often takes too long. It is not unusual for an appraisal to take three months to reach a resolution.

The process sounds fairly simple as it is written in most policies. The policyholder and insurance company each select an independent appraiser. The two appraisers evaluate the loss and attempt to reach an agreement. If they cannot agree, they submit their differences to an umpire. An agreement signed by any two members of the appraisal panel generally establishes the amount of the loss.

In reality, some cases settle within a month, while others drag on for six months, eight months or longer. I have handled a case that remained open for 13 months before it was finally resolved, and the vehicle owner had to retain an attorney to make that happen.

Rather than cover every small problem that can arise, I have identified what I believe are the five biggest problems that cause appraisal delays. After participating in hundreds of automobile appraisals as an appraiser, umpire or both, I have found that the same issues arise repeatedly.

Understanding these problems before you have to exercise your Right to Appraisal can help prevent unnecessary delay, expense and frustration.

So, here they are…

1. Waiting Too Long to Invoke Appraisal

The Ask the Expert article last month touched on this issue.

One of the most common mistakes is treating appraisal as a last resort rather than recognizing when ordinary claim negotiations have reached an impasse.

A policyholder may spend weeks or months submitting comparable vehicles in a total-loss dispute, repair documentation, invoices, photographs or written explanations to the insurance company. There is nothing wrong with making reasonable attempts to resolve the disagreement directly. However, once both sides have clearly established their positions and a disagreement remains over the amount of loss, it is time to invoke appraisal.

Delay creates practical problems.

A damaged vehicle may remain at a repair facility while storage charges accumulate. A total-loss vehicle may remain unavailable to its owner. Repairs may be completed before disputed operations can be properly documented. Comparable vehicles used to establish the pre-loss value may disappear from the market.

Delays cause problems.

The policyholder should review the policy language early, understand any applicable deadlines and invoke appraisal in writing once a genuine disagreement over the amount of loss exists. The demand should identify the claim, the vehicle, the nature of the dispute and the policyholder’s selected appraiser.

Appraisal works best when it is invoked deliberately – not prematurely, but not after the evidence has disappeared and the dispute has become unnecessarily complicated.

2. Selecting the Wrong Appraiser

The selection of the appraiser may be the most important decision made during the entire process.

The unfortunate reality is that all appraisers are not created equal. When you need an appraiser, be sure the one you select understands the type of loss being evaluated (repair dispute, total loss valuation, salvage value, loss of use, storage charges, etc).

An appraiser that is an expert at writing damage estimates may not be the right appraiser to handle a total loss value dispute. A total-loss valuation requires knowledge of formal valuation methodology, proper equipment, condition and mileage adjustments. They have to know how to make proper comparable vehicle selections, and explain how they evaluated the relevant market data. Even more, they should be familiar with how taxes, fees and salvage value are handled in the jurisdiction where the claim is governed. The point is that an appraiser that is experienced in total loss disputes has a better chance at settling a total loss with an opposing appraiser. Experience and knowledge give an appraiser leverage.

Likewise, a repair dispute requires knowledge of repair procedures, estimating systems, labor rates, structural repairs, refinishing requirements, calibrations, scans, corrosion protection and manufacturer repair information, to mention just a few.

Outside of experience and knowledge, we have to address the issue of an appraiser being “disinterested” or not. This problem occurs when an appraiser views the assignment as an opportunity to blindly defend the party who hired them. An appraiser is selected by one side and paid by that side, but the appraiser’s responsibility is to independently determine the amount of the loss. An appraiser that views his or her role as an advocate for the party that hired them creates a fundamental problem with the spirit of the typical appraisal clause (the typical clause would have the disinterested language, but not all do). The goal of the appraiser should not be to produce the highest or lowest number possible, depending on which side hired them; the goal is to arrive at the proper and supportable number that reflects the amount of loss.

A competent appraiser should be able to explain how the opinion was developed, identify the evidence considered, discuss the disputed items with the opposing appraiser and make reasonable changes when better information is presented.

The strongest appraiser is not necessarily the loudest or most aggressive person involved. It is usually the person who understands the loss, documents the opinion and can defend the methodology.

3. Failing to Clearly Define the Dispute

Appraisal determines the amount of a covered loss. It does not automatically resolve every disagreement that may exist between the insurance company and the policyholder.

Problems arise when the parties enter appraisal without identifying what is actually being disputed.

In a total-loss claim, the dispute may involve the vehicle’s pre-loss value, options, mileage, condition, taxes and fees or the salvage deduction when the owner retains the vehicle.

In a repair claim, the dispute may involve labor rates, necessary repair operations, replacement-versus-repair decisions, parts selection, refinishing procedures, scans, calibrations, structural measurements or other costs required to return the vehicle to its pre-loss condition.

Coverage questions are different from amount-of-loss questions.

An appraiser may determine what a disputed operation or item costs, while the insurance company may separately reserve the right to dispute whether that item is covered under the policy. When the appraiser or policyholder does not understand the carrier’s actual position, the appraisal takes longer because valuable time is spent trying to clarify the dispute.

The only solution is persistence.

Identify the carrier’s actual position, request clarification of vague statements or denials, and memorialize important conversations and positions in writing. Call the adjuster, the shop and the appraiser when necessary, and do not allow an unclear or constantly shifting position to remain unresolved.

The appraisal demand, supporting documentation and communications between the appraisers should make the scope of the disagreement clear. When the dispute is poorly defined, the appraisers may evaluate different issues, use different assumptions or prepare awards that do not actually resolve the claim.

At its core, the appraisal panel should be addressing an amount-of-loss question – not attempting to decide policy coverage, causation or the number of covered occurrences.

4. Incomplete Documentation and Poor Communication

Appraisal is an evidence-based process. An appraiser cannot properly evaluate information that is never provided.

In total-loss cases, the appraisers should have access to the valuation report, photographs, vehicle identification information, mileage, equipment, maintenance and condition records, relevant recent expenditures and the comparable vehicles relied upon by each side.

In repair disputes, the appraisers may need the insurance estimate, repair facility estimate, supplements, photographs, scan reports, measurements, invoices, manufacturer repair procedures, parts documentation, calibration requirements and access to inspect the vehicle.

Too often, important information is provided piecemeal. One document is sent to the adjuster, another to the repair facility and a third to the appraiser. Each participant assumes someone else has the complete file.

Communication between the appraisers can also become unnecessarily adversarial.

Appraisers sometimes exchange numbers without exchanging the reasoning behind them. Others refuse to identify the specific disputed operations, valuation adjustments or documentation supporting their positions.

That turns appraisal into positional bargaining instead of a genuine evaluation of the loss.

When appraisers are simply throwing out numbers in an attempt to negotiate a resolution, the process often turns into a series of emails and voicemail messages that sound something like this:

“Are you in agreement with $XXXX.XX on this one?”

“No. I was waiting on your supporting documentation.”

That loop continues until someone demands the supporting information or properly submits the narrowed and documented dispute to the umpire.

Each appraiser should present a clear position supported by organized documentation. The opposing appraiser should be given a reasonable opportunity to review that information and respond.

Professional disagreement is expected. Withholding information and refusing meaningful discussion only increase the likelihood that an umpire will be required and delay the resolution.

5. Misusing the Umpire Process

If a case is stuck, it should not be because the appraisers do not like each other’s personalities.

The umpire is not supposed to replace the work of the two appraisers or act as a mediator or diplomat. The umpire is a third appraiser who independently evaluates the properly documented and unresolved portions of the loss submitted by the parties’ selected appraisers.

The two appraisers should first investigate the loss, exchange their positions, identify the remaining differences and make a genuine attempt to reach an agreement. The umpire should become involved in the merits of the dispute only after the appraisers are unable to resolve those differences.

There is nothing inherently wrong with agreeing on an umpire early in the process. In fact, early selection can prevent additional delay later.

The problem arises when an umpire is immediately pulled into the merits of the dispute before the two appraisers have meaningfully exchanged information, defined the disagreement or attempted to resolve it.

I have increasingly seen appraisers – most often carrier-selected appraisers in my own files – move toward umpire involvement almost immediately after appraisal begins.

Once an umpire is selected, the parties’ appraisers sometimes send the umpire two estimates or valuation figures with little or no explanation and expect the umpire to reconstruct the entire claim.

That creates delay and forces the umpire into a role the process did not intend.

I once handled a case as the agreed-upon umpire where I was provided nothing more than two dollar amounts. I was not even provided damage estimates supporting those amounts, just numbers and some photos of the damages.

After a week of delay caused by having to contact both appraisers and determine what the dispute was actually about, I discovered that the real disagreement involved whether the vehicle had been involved in one collision or two.

The vehicle owner maintained that all the damage occurred at the same time. The carrier maintained that the damage resulted from two separate collisions.

Of course, that was not an amount-of-loss issue the appraisal panel should resolve (but we got creative and resolved that one through candid discussion).

The appraisers should narrow the dispute before submitting it to the umpire. Agreed items should be removed from consideration. The remaining disputed items should be clearly identified, and each appraiser should provide the evidence supporting the position.

The selection of the umpire is also important.

The umpire should be impartial, experienced with the type of loss involved, available to complete the assignment and free from relationships that could reasonably call the umpire’s neutrality into question.

Once involved, the umpire should independently evaluate the evidence rather than simply split the difference between the appraisers. A midpoint may occasionally be correct, but it is not a substitute for analysis.

Appraisal Is a Process, Not a Threat

The Right to Appraisal should not be viewed as a weapon against an insurance company or as a way for an insurer to discourage a policyholder from pursuing a legitimate disagreement.

It is a contractual process intended to determine the amount of a covered loss when the parties cannot agree.

Want more? Check out the August 2026 issue of Texas Automotive!