California Insurance Appraisal Case Law
These are the California decisions that shape how insurance appraisal actually runs — who the panel can be, what it may decide, and what happens to its award. Every case below was verified against the text of the actual opinion before it went on this page; the quoted language is verbatim. It's a working library, not an exhaustive one, and it is not legal advice.
Scope of the panel's authority
Hughes v. Potomac Insurance Co., 199 Cal.App.2d 239 (1962)
Court of Appeal, First District
The panel values the items submitted to it; resolving coverage questions and interpreting the policy is not its function. The origin of the language nearly every later scope case quotes.
“The function of appraisers is to determine the amount of damage resulting to various items submitted for their consideration. It is certainly not their function to resolve questions of coverage and interpret provisions of the policy.”
Lewis Food Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 207 Cal.App.2d 515 (1962)
Court of Appeal, Second District
An award fixing loss amounts does not decide coverage — the insured's action is on the policy, not on the award.
“Under the applicable law the plaintiff's cause of action was on the policy and not on the award.”
Safeco Insurance Co. v. Sharma, 160 Cal.App.3d 1060 (1984)
Court of Appeal, Second District
Appraisers value the property as described to them; deciding the identity or character of what was lost exceeds their powers and supports vacatur.
“Certainly, an insurer is free to litigate whether the insured has misrepresented what he lost; but it is beyond the scope of an appraisal.”
Kacha v. Allstate Insurance Co., 140 Cal.App.4th 1023 (2006)
Court of Appeal, Fourth District
An award that embeds coverage determinations exceeds the panel's powers; where it can't be corrected without affecting the merits, it must be vacated.
“When an appraisal panel exceeds its powers by deciding coverage issues, and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision, the decision must be vacated.”
Devonwood Condominium Owners Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 162 Cal.App.4th 1498 (2008)
Court of Appeal, First District
A confirmed award fixes value, not liability — confirmation cannot become a money judgment holding the insurer liable for the award amount.
“…they merely determined the 'loss,' i.e., the replacement cost values, resulting from the fire.”
Lee v. California Capital Insurance Co., 237 Cal.App.4th 1154 (2015)
Court of Appeal, First District
The panel may assign values to coverage-disputed items with a disclaimer that the award decides no coverage — but ordering the panel to value items that inspection shows are undamaged or never existed is error. The case cuts both ways: it blessed disputed-item valuation and still reversed the confirmation.
“An appraisal panel may assign a value to items as to which coverage is disputed with the disclaimer that the award does not establish coverage or the insurer's liability to pay.”
Appraisal as arbitration; the award's effect
Klubnikin v. California FAIR Plan Association, 84 Cal.App.3d 393 (1978)
Court of Appeal, Second District
Fire-policy appraisers are arbitrators within CCP § 1280; an award unchallenged within the statutory deadlines and then confirmed is final.
“'[A]ppraisers' empowered by the terms of a policy of fire insurance to determine the 'cash value' and 'loss' … are arbitrators within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1280.”
Appalachian Insurance Co. v. Rivcom Corp., 130 Cal.App.3d 818 (1982)
Court of Appeal, Second District
A fire-policy appraisal agreement is an agreement to arbitrate under the CCP and is enforceable — the insured was ordered to designate its appraiser. (Careful: the 1989 Appalachian v. McDonnell Douglas case is unrelated.)
“As used in the Code of Civil Procedure, an agreement providing for an appraisal is included within the concept of agreements to arbitrate.”
Louise Gardens of Encino Homeowners' Association v. Truck Insurance Exchange, 82 Cal.App.4th 648 (2000)
Court of Appeal, Second District
The appraisal provision is treated as an arbitration agreement; a party that lets CCP § 1288's 100-day window pass — and accepts the award's benefits — waives its challenge.
“The appraisal award will thus become final and binding on both parties as a measure of the cash value of the loss sustained…”
Lambert v. Carneghi, 158 Cal.App.4th 1120 (2008)
Court of Appeal, First District
A § 2071 appraisal is an arbitration, and a party-appointed appraiser is protected by arbitral immunity from suit over the appraiser role.
“We conclude that an appraisal proceeding pursuant to section 2071 is an arbitration, and that respondent Carneghi was immune from suit over his role as an appraiser.”
Khorsand v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 20 Cal.App.5th 1028 (2018)
Court of Appeal, Second District
Evidence Code § 703.5's testimonial bar covers all panel members — including party appraisers — so an appraiser's declaration can't be used to attack the award's merits at confirmation.
“…we conclude the term 'arbitrator' encompasses all the members of the appraisal panel.”
Disinterest, disclosure, and disqualification
Figi v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 108 Cal.App.3d 772 (1980)
Court of Appeal
Appraisal demands a heightened standard of disinterest; an umpire's undisclosed business dealings with a party appraiser supported vacatur.
“The standard of disinterest is higher in the context of insurance appraisal than otherwise.”
Gebers v. State Farm General Insurance Co., 38 Cal.App.4th 1648 (1995)
Court of Appeal, First District
Policy language calling appraisers 'independent' yields to § 2071's 'disinterested' standard; the insurer's currently retained expert witness could not serve as its appraiser.
“…the language of the policy must yield to the language of the statute requiring that the appraisers be disinterested.”
Michael v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance Co., 88 Cal.App.4th 925 (2001)
Court of Appeal, Second District
A party-selected 'disinterested' appraiser must make arbitrator disclosures; nondisclosure can amount to 'corruption' supporting vacatur — though on those facts the vacatur was reversed.
“…to be 'disinterested,' a party-selected appraiser must make the disclosure that section 1281.9 … requires all arbitrators to make.”
Mahnke v. Superior Court, 180 Cal.App.4th 565 (2009)
Court of Appeal, Second District
CCP § 1281.9's disclosure regime applies only to the neutral — the umpire — not to party-selected appraisers; the 15-day disqualification clock likewise doesn't reach party appraisers.
“The disclosure requirements in section 1281.9 … do not apply to any arbitrator other than the jointly selected, or court-appointed, proposed neutral arbitrator—or, in the case of a contested appraisal proceeding, the competent and disinterested umpire.”
Fact versus law: ACV, depreciation, and deferring appraisal
Jefferson Insurance Co. of N.Y. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 398 (1970)
Supreme Court of California
Appraisers decide the factual value question only; applying the wrong legal measure of value exceeds their authority. (Its ACV-equals-fair-market-value equation predates the modern § 2051 framework — cite it for the fact-versus-law principle, not the measure of ACV.)
“…the appraisers were authorized to determine only a question of fact, namely, the actual cash value of the insured building.”
Community Assisting Recovery, Inc. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 886 (2001)
Court of Appeal, Second District
Carrier-side authority: a UCL attack on ACV settlement practices failed because § 2071 appraisal is the Legislature's remedy for contested valuations. Later decisions treat it as resting on pre-2004 law.
“…the safeguard of the appraisal process provided by the Legislature…”
Doan v. State Farm General Insurance Co., 195 Cal.App.4th 1082 (2011)
Court of Appeal, Sixth District
Trial courts have discretion to defer appraisal pending a judicial declaration of the parties' rights where the dispute is really about depreciation/ACV methodology.
“…trial court has discretion to defer an appraisal pending a judicial declaration of the parties' rights…”
Kirkwood v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, 193 Cal.App.4th 49 (2011)
Court of Appeal, First District
Appraisers cannot interpret the policy or the statutes; compelling appraisal was properly deferred until the legal depreciation questions were resolved.
“Appraisers have no power to interpret the insurance contract or the governing statutes.”
Alexander v. Farmers Insurance Co., 219 Cal.App.4th 1183 (2013)
Court of Appeal, Second District
Adopts Kirkwood/Doan: whether to stay appraisal pending legal issues is committed to the trial court's discretion. A 2-1 decision — worth noting when leaning on it.
“…the decision whether to stay the appraisal is committed to the trial court's sound discretion.”
California FAIR Plan Association v. Garnes, 11 Cal.App.5th 1276 (2017)
Court of Appeal, First District
For a partial loss under an open ACV fire policy, §§ 2051/2071 require repair cost less depreciation even when that exceeds fair market value — the statutes override conflicting policy terms.
“…the Insurance Code requires payment of the costs to repair her home, less depreciation, even if this amount exceeds the fair market value of her home, and it governs over any conflicting terms of the Policy.”
Two cautions from the verification work behind this page: the appraisal “Appalachian” case is Rivcom (1982) — the 1989 Appalachian v. McDonnell Douglas decision is unrelated — and Fire Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court(2004), often miscited in appraisal articles for causation, contains no appraisal holding at all. If you see either miscited, check the source's other citations too.
Litigating around an appraisal? These cases are the map.
Leland Coontz serves as a party appraiser and umpire in California and most other states. Email is best — include the carrier, the loss location, and where the appraisal stands.