Most appraisal clause disputes are professional disagreements about evidence. But every once in a while, an opposing appraiser tries to use delay, intimidation, or invented authority to shut the process down. This is one of those stories.

I hate bullies.

Always have.

Not just the kind you see in movies.

Also the more calculated, cunning kind who hide behind a job title, a company logo, or years of corporate experience and use that perceived authority to intimidate, deflect, and control the conversation whenever they’re challenged.

Every day I represent people who just lost a vehicle. Oftentimes they’re also dealing with injuries, doctor’s appointments, missed work, trying to replace the vehicle their family depends on. Sometimes the accident that totaled the vehicle also took the life of someone they loved.

They hire me so getting a fair valuation for their lost vehicle is one less thing they have to deal with during a very difficult time. So when an opposing appraiser tries to disqualify me, invent a reason I shouldn’t be at the table, or declare the whole thing over because he doesn’t like where the evidence is heading, he’s not just making my job harder. He’s trying to take away the one thing standing between my client and the insurance company that is trying to get away with paying out as little as possible.

Fortunately, that’s not how most appraisal clause disputes go.

I’ve worked with hundreds of opposing appraisers over the years. Most are knowledgeable, respectful, genuinely interested in reaching the right answer. We exchange reports, discuss comparable vehicles, challenge each other’s conclusions, and either settle or go to an umpire.

I’ve disagreed by a few hundred dollars. I’ve disagreed by tens of thousands. That’s part of the process. It doesn’t bother me. I enjoy it.

But every once in a while, I run into someone who isn’t interested in the evidence at all. Someone who changes the subject instead of answering questions. Who creates delay instead of progress. Who, when he runs out of moves, invents a reason to disqualify you instead of admitting he doesn’t have one.

This is one of those stories.

It Started With a Free Second Opinion

A few months ago I received a request for one of my free second opinions.

The owner had a 2005 Acura TL with roughly 126,000 miles and a branded title. Progressive had valued it at $3,854.62, and he wasn’t sure whether that was fair. He wasn’t looking to argue with his insurer. He just wanted an independent opinion before deciding whether to invoke the appraisal clause.

I reviewed Progressive’s valuation, the vehicle’s history, the branded title, and a local dealer’s opinion on value the owner had gathered. Based on everything available, I estimated the Acura’s Actual Cash Value in the $5,000 to $6,000 range before taxes.

Not a promise. Not a guarantee. Just my opinion, based on the evidence at the time.

Because Progressive’s offer was well below that range, I recommended invoking the appraisal clause. The owner agreed, retained me, and the process began.

At that point, I had no reason to think this case would be any different from the hundreds before it.

A Difference of Opinion

Once Progressive appointed its appraiser, we each did what independent appraisers are supposed to do: complete our own valuation.

I prepared my report using comparable market vehicles, mileage adjustments, condition analysis, and supporting documentation. After accounting for the branded title, I concluded an Actual Cash Value of $6,422.

The opposing appraiser concluded $3,130. More than $3,000 lower than my opinion, and even lower than Progressive’s offer, something I don’t see very often.

Disagreements happen. That’s exactly why the appraisal clause exists. But when two appraisers are that far apart, the next step should be obvious: talk about the evidence.

So that’s what I tried to do.

I emailed the opposing appraiser with a few questions. One of his comparables was a 2004 Acura TL, a full model year older, listed at just $2,280, a clear outlier next to the other comps he’d used. I asked how the title history deduction had been calculated, since his report didn’t explain it. And I pointed out that even Progressive’s own condition assessment rated the vehicle “Excellent,” which matched the owner’s photos and description.

I ended with a simple question: “Any flexibility on this one?”

I expected we’d start discussing the evidence.

Instead, I got a two-sentence response that completely ignored the questions I’d asked.

“Umpire. Need your NPN please.”

That was it. No discussion of the comparables. No answer to any of my questions. Two sentences.

An NPN, or National Producer Number, is required for insurance adjusters. Adjusters interpret policy language and make coverage decisions. That’s not what we were doing here. I had been retained as the policyholder’s independent appraiser under the appraisal clause for one purpose: independently determine the vehicle’s Actual Cash Value. Independent appraisers are not required to hold an NPN.

I told him that. He still wouldn’t answer any questions about his report or discuss the evidence. Since he wasn’t willing to engage, we had reached an impasse. I asked him to send his umpire candidates so we could proceed under the terms of the appraisal clause. I also told him I’d send mine.

When the Conversation Changed

Then I waited. Nothing.

A week later, I followed up again and I asked again for his umpire candidates.

Still nothing. I followed up twice more over the next several days.

At this point, the issue wasn’t disagreement anymore. The process itself had stopped moving.

Getting Progressive Involved

When it became clear the opposing appraiser wasn’t responding, I contacted Progressive directly. Not to complain, not to argue, just to explain what had happened and ask them to have their appraiser provide umpire candidates so we could move forward. Four days later, with still no response, I followed up again, this time with the policyholder copied for visibility, and gave Progressive 48 hours before I’d escalate further.

That’s when the opposing appraiser resurfaced. He accused me of going around him and ignoring his requests before finally sending a list of umpire candidates.

I agreed to one of his umpire candidates and let him know I was ready to move forward with the umpire process.

Rather than move forward with the umpire he’d proposed, he informed me I was “disqualified,” claimed I wasn’t licensed, and declared the proceedings “terminated.”

This is what bullying looks like in this process. Not because he raised his voice, he never did, but because he tried to end the case by declaring authority he didn’t have. An appraiser’s only job is to independently determine the vehicle’s Actual Cash Value. Nothing in the appraisal clause lets one appraiser disqualify the other or unilaterally terminate the appraisal process. That decision was never his to make.

I responded calmly and explained why an NPN was not applicable to an independent appraiser serving under the appraisal clause and made clear that I remained ready to proceed.

Since he had declared the proceedings “terminated” and was no longer willing to engage with me, there was no way for the appraisal process to move forward so I requested for Progressive to either instruct their appraiser to comply with the appraisal clause or appoint a replacement.

Two days later, without any explanation for the reversal, the opposing appraiser agreed to proceed with the umpire after all. The appraisal continued exactly as the policy required.

The Outcome

The umpire ultimately determined the Acura’s Actual Cash Value at $5,450, almost exactly in the middle of my initial estimated range to my client.

It just reinforces something I’ve believed for a long time: when everyone follows the process and lets the evidence speak, the process works.

This isn’t about one opposing appraiser. It isn’t about winning an argument. It isn’t about holding a grudge.

It’s about why I hate bullies.

Not because they make my job harder. Because these tactics don’t target someone at their strongest. They target someone who just had their car totaled. Someone dealing with injuries. Someone trying to get back to work. Someone wondering how they’re going to replace the vehicle their family depends on. They didn’t choose to be in this situation. The accident forced them here.

Those are the people I represent.

If an opposing appraiser has better evidence than I do, I’ll acknowledge it. If I overlooked something, I’ll correct it. If the market proves me wrong, I’ll change my opinion. That’s what professionals do. I’ve disagreed with plenty of appraisers by tens of thousands of dollars and never lost a bit of respect for them, because we were arguing about the evidence.

But I won’t be bullied.

Not because I’m stubborn.

Because when I back down, it isn’t me who pays the price.

It’s the person who hired me to stand between them and an insurance company during one of the hardest moments of their life.

That’s not something I’m willing to do.

My clients hopefully only have to go through this battle once.

I fight it every day, and I’m not going anywhere.