I often say that an appraisal is supposed to be the end of the fight, not the beginning of a new one in court. A recent Eighth Circuit decision out of Minnesota shows just how wrong it is to think the appraisals are the end of the claims fight. The case also shows that when an appraisal award is not crystal clear, the law can be unforgiving when parties try to fix it after the fact.
In Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Rymer Companies, 1 the dispute involved a tornado that damaged a commercial roof. The insurer said the damage was small. The policyholder said the loss was catastrophic. The matter went to appraisal, and the panel issued a unanimous award of $23,226 for “mall roof repair.”
After the appraisal, the local building official refused to allow a partial repair because the roof was already in a deteriorated, water-soaked condition. Under the building code, partial repair triggered full replacement. Suddenly, a $23,000 repair became a potential $1.7 million loss. That is where the case shifted from a typical appraisal dispute into a lesson every appraiser and umpire should take to heart.
The entire case ultimately turned on one deceptively simple question: What did “mall roof repair” mean? Did it include repairs to the roof surface itself, or was it limited to flashing? That distinction determined whether the ordinance and law coverage applied. If the appraisal included roof surface work, the code was triggered and the insurer owed for a full replacement. If not, the policyholder was out of luck.
The Eighth Circuit recognized that appraisal awards are not immune from ambiguity. When they are ambiguous, courts may refer them back to the panel for clarification. That is exactly what happened here. The district court did not attempt to interpret the award itself. Instead, it asked the appraisal panel to answer specific questions about the award.
Many argue that appraisal awards are nearly untouchable once issued. This case confirms that courts can and will send unclear awards back to the panel. That should put every appraiser and umpire on notice. If your award is vague, you may not be finished with the case.
What happened next is where the case becomes even more instructive—and more troubling for those who believe they can clean up an award after the fact. The panel issued a clarification. The umpire sided with the insurer’s appraiser, concluding that the award did not include roof surface repairs. That clarification effectively ended the policyholder’s claim for full replacement.
But the story did not end there. The policyholder suspected something was wrong and sought to depose the appraisers. The court allowed it, but only for a limited purpose: to determine whether there had been fraud, misfeasance, or wrongdoing. During those depositions, the umpire contradicted the written clarification and admitted that the original award did include some roof surface work.
At that moment, many would think the case turned back in favor of the policyholder. It did not. The Eighth Circuit made it clear that testimony from appraisers and umpires cannot be used to reinterpret or expand an appraisal award. That testimony has only one purpose—to determine whether the award should be vacated for misconduct. It cannot be used to change the meaning of the award.
That distinction is critical and cannot be overstated. The policyholder tried to use the umpire’s testimony to have it both ways. It wanted to keep the award intact while expanding its scope, as the umpire later said. The court rejected that approach in unmistakable terms. Minnesota law does not allow a party to preserve an award and simultaneously rewrite it through testimony.
The court’s reasoning reflects a deeper principle about appraisal. The process is designed to produce a final determination of the amount of loss based on the written award. If parties could later reshape that award through depositions, the finality of appraisal would collapse. Minnesota law draws a hard line. Either you accept the award as written and clarified, or you challenge it entirely through a motion to vacate. There is no middle ground.
This case also sends a warning to appraisers and umpires that should not be ignored. Many have long assumed that their work ends when the award is signed. That assumption is no longer safe. In this case, the court allowed the appraisal panel’s depositions. While limited in scope, the mere fact that appraisers and the umpire were questioned under oath about their decision should get everyone’s attention.
Appraisers and umpires must now understand that their work product may be scrutinized not only through briefs and motions but also through sworn testimony. If there are inconsistencies, unclear reasoning, or poorly documented decisions, those weaknesses may come to light in a deposition setting. That is not a comfortable place to be if the award was not carefully thought through and clearly expressed.
The most important lesson from this case is that an appraisal award must clearly say exactly what it means. There is little opportunity to fix it later through explanation or testimony. If the language leaves room for interpretation, the parties and the panel will be dragged back into litigation. Once that happens, the law will force a choice to accept the award as written or attack it entirely. You cannot have it both ways.
Precision and clarity matter in appraisal. Words describing what was ruled upon matter. A few vague words in an appraisal award can determine whether a claim is worth $23,000 or $1.7 million.
Appraisers and umpires should take this decision as a call to elevate their work. Define the appraisal’s scope and clearly identify what is awarded. Make clear what is included in the award and what is not. Do not assume that everyone will “know what you meant.” Courts will not guess, and they may not allow you to explain it later.
This case is about the integrity of the appraisal process. If appraisal is to remain the efficient and final mechanism it was intended to be, those who serve as appraisers and umpires must ensure their awards leave no room for doubt about the findings.
I am certain that good ‘ole Steve Badger and I will be discussing this case at future IAUA and P.L.A.N. appraisal conferences. This is an important appraisal case with lessons for all involved in appraisal.
For those involved with Minnesota appraisals, I suggest you read Causation Can Be Determined in Minnesota Appraisals.
Thought For The Day
“Minnesota is a place where people are taught to respect each other and to work things out fairly.”
— Walter Mondale
1 Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Rymer Companies, No. 24-3356 (8th Cir. Mar. 27, 2026). See also, Policyholder’s Initial Brief, Insurer’s Answer Brief, and Policyholder’s Reply Brief.
