Appraisal Demand Letter Template & Example

9 September 2026

[Carrier], Property Claims

Attention:

R. Calloway

Re:

DEMAND FOR APPRAISAL

Insured:

Daniel Okonjo

Policy:

HO-4471902

Claim:

PC-2026-11482

Loss location:

41 Harbour Lane, [City]. Date of loss 14 July 2026.

On behalf of the insured, and pursuant to the appraisal provision of the policy, the insured demands appraisal of the amount of loss.

The provision reads: 'In case the insured and this company shall fail to agree as to the actual cash value or the amount of loss, either shall, on the written demand of either, select a competent and disinterested appraiser...'

The clause is quoted rather than referenced. A demand that cites 'the appraisal provision' without setting it out invites a reply asking which provision is meant, and that exchange costs a fortnight for nothing.

This letter is the written demand. The 20-day period for each party to select and notify an appraiser runs from today, 9 September 2026.

Following the reconciliation of 19 August 2026 and the re-inspection of 27 August, the carrier revised its estimate to $24,120 on 2 September. The insured's estimate remains $29,880.

Amount in dispute: $5,760.

Submitted to appraisal — three items, all matters of amount:

1. Line 11, lower cabinetry:

whether replacement of 14 LF is required or whether 6 LF plus refinishing is sufficient. A scope-and-amount question.

2. Line 22, drying duration:

4 days against 7.

3. Line 26, antimicrobial application area:

340 SF against 480 SF.

NOT submitted to appraisal, and expressly reserved:

— Coverage. The carrier has confirmed in writing on 2 September that the loss is covered and has raised no coverage defence. Nothing in this demand is to be read as submitting any coverage question to the appraisers.

— Causation of the concealed cavity damage discovered 15 September. That remains under separate consideration as a supplement and is not part of this appraisal.

— Any claim arising from the handling of the claim.

The exclusions are stated because appraisers who receive a coverage question either exceed their authority or stall, and both outcomes cost more than the paragraph that would have prevented them.

The insured selects as appraiser: Ms Ruth Achebe, licensed general contractor, 22 years in restoration estimating, no prior involvement in this claim and no interest in its outcome. Contact details attached. Notified to the carrier by this letter, within the 20-day period.

Merrow Loss Consulting does not serve as the insured's appraiser and cannot. Our fee is a percentage of the amount recovered, which gives this firm a direct financial interest in the figure an appraiser is meant to determine impartially. The clause requires an appraiser who is competent AND disinterested, and a contingent fee defeats the second.

This is worth stating in the demand rather than leaving to be noticed. An award can be challenged on the disinterest of an appraiser, and a challenge that succeeds wastes the entire process. Firms do appoint themselves, and the practice survives because it is rarely tested — until it is.

We will assist Ms Achebe with documents and access. We will not instruct her on the figure.

Calculated from the demand of 9 September 2026:

— Each party to select an appraiser and notify the other by 29 September 2026 (20 days).

— The two appraisers to select an umpire. If they have not agreed within 15 days of both being named, either party may apply to a judge of a court of record to select one.

Both dates are diarised. Missing the 20 days concedes a procedural argument for nothing at all.

Costs, explained to the insured in writing on 5 September and agreed by him before this demand issued:

— The insured pays Ms Achebe. Estimated $2,200-$3,000 on this scope.

— The carrier pays its own appraiser.

— The umpire's fee and the expenses of appraisal are split equally. Estimated share $900-$1,500.

So the insured's likely outlay is $3,100-$4,500 to resolve $5,760 in dispute. That arithmetic was put to Mr Okonjo plainly, because it is close, and a client who learns it after the award has been badly served. He elected to proceed, principally because the cabinetry line also governs whether the supplement work can be completed as a single sequence.

Effect of the award: an award in writing, so itemized, agreed by any two of the three, determines the amount of actual cash value and of loss. It is binding on amount. It is not a further negotiation and there is no appeal on the merits of the figure.

Checked before the demand issued rather than assumed.

Declared disaster: no state of emergency or government-declared disaster applies to this loss, which was a single-property supply-line failure. Worth checking every time — California's provision, for example, allows appraisal to be REQUESTED in a declared disaster but provides it shall not be COMPELLED, which removes the assumption that a demand is self-executing exactly when the largest number of claims are in dispute.

Policy preconditions: the policy conditions the insured's right to bring suit on compliance with all policy requirements, and requires a sworn proof of loss within 60 days of the loss unless extended in writing. A sworn proof of loss was furnished on 8 August 2026 and acknowledged by the carrier on 11 August. Nothing outstanding.

Suit limitation: the policy bars action commenced more than 24 months after inception of the loss, which here is 14 July 2028. Recorded because appraisal does not toll a suit limitation unless the policy or the governing law says so, and an insured who spends eighteen months in appraisal on the assumption that it does can emerge with an award and no way to enforce it.

The insured has been advised in writing that he may wish to take legal advice on the limitation position. That is not advice this firm is licensed to give, and saying so is better than a sentence that reads like advice from someone who cannot give it.