Steve Badger and I will be debating and discussing insurance appraisal issues at the sold-out IAUA event in Dallas tomorrow. So, it seems appropriate that I follow up on the answer to a blog post I wrote, Guess What the Court Will Do with the Appointment of an Umpire. This was a case where the parties asked the court to appoint the appraisal umpire after the parties reached an impasse. That post highlighted a growing judicial willingness to ensure the appraisal process does not stall because of gamesmanship or deadlock.
In Bosak v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, the court granted a motion for the appointment of an impartial umpire. What is unique is that it directed the parties to seek that appointment through the American Arbitration Association (AAA). 1
Most people in the property insurance world understand the traditional appraisal process. Each side selects a competent and impartial appraiser, and those two appraisers attempt to agree on an umpire. If they cannot, a court steps in and appoints one. That is the textbook version. But when a court orders the parties to go to the American Arbitration Association, the process shifts from informal negotiation to a structured, quasi-administrative selection system.
The parties, armed with the court’s order, initiate a request with the AAA for what is essentially an administrative appointment. This is not a full arbitration proceeding. The AAA is not there to decide the dispute. Its role is narrower. It acts as a neutral clearinghouse to identify and appoint a qualified umpire.
Once the request is opened, the AAA assigns a case administrator and compiles a list of potential candidates. These are not random names. They are individuals within the AAA’s panel system, typically vetted for experience, neutrality, and subject-matter expertise. The AAA sends the list to both parties, who are given the opportunity to strike unacceptable candidates and rank the remaining ones in order of preference. This is where strategy matters. It is not simply about eliminating the worst option. It is about anticipating what the other side will do and shaping the pool of viable candidates that survive mutual review.
After both sides submit their rankings, the AAA applies its selection methodology and appoints the umpire. In most instances, it selects the highest-ranked mutually acceptable candidate. If the parties manage to strike everyone, the AAA can issue a new list or make a direct appointment.
What is striking about this process is that many participants assume “AAA rules” govern the appraisal. That is not true. Unless the insurance policy explicitly incorporates AAA arbitration rules, the AAA is typically acting only as an appointing authority. Still, the influence of the AAA’s structure should not be underestimated. The organization requires disclosures from candidates, screens for conflicts, and brings a level of procedural discipline that is often absent when appraisers try to select an umpire on their own. In contentious cases, that neutrality can be exactly what the court is seeking.
The bottom line is that when a court sends you to the AAA for an umpire, you are no longer in a casual negotiation. You are in a structured selection process in which preparation, judgment, and strategy will determine who ultimately serves as the umpire.
Thought For The Day
“In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.”
— Albert Einstein
1 Bosak v. West Bend Mutual Ins. Co., No. 25-cv-2030 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 17, 2026).