The Ultimate Guide to Insurance Appraisal in California
How property insurance appraisal works in California — governed by Insurance Code § 2071, subject to the procedural framework of the California Arbitration Act, and shaped by scope restrictions that distinguish California from most other states.
Written by
Sarah PatchCo-Founder and Insurance Appraisal Writer
20 years across construction, design, and insurance-related work, including experience serving as an appraiser.
California insurance appraisal quick reference — key facts under Insurance Code § 2071 and the contractual arbitration statutes
Legal Authority for Insurance Appraisal in California
California appraisal law is a hybrid system. The substantive right to appraisal originates in the Insurance Code, which requires property policies covering fire to include a mandatory appraisal clause. When disputes arise over whether to compel appraisal, how to appoint an umpire, or whether to vacate an award, courts often apply the procedural framework of the California Arbitration Act. Four statutes control how appraisal works in practice.
| Statute | Role in Appraisal |
|---|---|
| Ins. Code § 2070 | Requires property policies covering fire to use the statutory standard fire policy form, or language substantially equivalent to or more favorable than the standard form. This is what forces insurers to include the appraisal clause. |
| Ins. Code § 2071 | Contains the appraisal clause itself — the complete procedure for resolving disputes over actual cash value or amount of loss, including appraiser selection, umpire appointment, the two-of-three award rule, informal proceedings, cost allocation, and the disaster exception. |
| CCP § 1281.6 | Allows court appointment of an umpire when the appraisers cannot agree. This is the procedural bridge between appraisal and arbitration — courts regularly use this provision to break umpire selection deadlocks. |
| CCP § 1288 | Provides the deadline to challenge an award when appraisal is treated under arbitration procedures. A party must file a petition to vacate or correct the award within 100 days after service. |
The four statutes that directly govern insurance appraisal procedure in California. Substantive appraisal rights flow from Insurance Code §§ 2070–2071; procedural enforcement flows from the California Arbitration Act.
The Statutory Fire Policy Requirement (§ 2070)
California appraisal originates in the statutory fire policy framework. Insurance Code § 2070 requires that all property insurance policies covering the peril of fire — even in part — be written on the standard fire policy form, or provide fire coverage that is substantially equivalent to or more favorable than the standard form. Because the standard fire policy contains the appraisal clause, § 2070 is what compels insurers to include appraisal in their policies. If other perils are covered, the policy language need not be verbatim, but the fire coverage offered must meet or exceed the statutory standard. See Fire Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court, 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 459 (2004).
The Appraisal Clause (§ 2071)
The appraisal procedure itself is contained in Insurance Code § 2071. This is the core legal authority for insurance appraisal in California. The statute establishes the full process: when either party may request appraisal, how appraisers and the umpire are selected, the scope of the panel's authority, the two-of-three award rule, the informal nature of proceedings, cost allocation between the parties, and the disaster exception. Every procedural question about how appraisal works in California begins with this statute.
"In case the insured and this company shall fail to agree as to the actual cash value or the amount of loss, then, on the written request of either, each shall select a competent and disinterested appraiser and notify the other of the appraiser selected within 20 days of the request. Where the request is accepted, the appraisers shall first select a competent and disinterested umpire; and failing for 15 days to agree upon the umpire, then, on request of the insured or this company, the umpire shall be selected by a judge of a court of record in the state in which the property covered is located. Appraisal proceedings are informal unless the insured and this company mutually agree otherwise. The appraisers shall then appraise the loss, stating separately actual cash value and loss to each item; and, failing to agree, shall submit their differences, only, to the umpire. An award in writing, so itemized, of any two when filed with this company shall determine the amount of actual cash value and loss. Each appraiser shall be paid by the party selecting him or her and the expenses of appraisal and umpire shall be paid by the parties equally. In the event of a government-declared disaster, as defined in the Government Code, appraisal may be requested by either the insured or this company but shall not be compelled."
Appraisal clause from the California standard fire policy, Insurance Code § 2071. Specific policy language may vary by insurer and edition.
In plain terms
When the insurer and the policyholder cannot agree on the actual cash value or the amount of loss, either side can trigger appraisal with a written request. Each side selects a "competent and disinterested" appraiser. Those two appraisers choose a neutral umpire. The appraisers separately determine the actual cash value and amount of loss for each item. If any two of the three agree, their written award determines the amount. The proceedings are informal by default unless the parties agree otherwise.
Court Appointment of the Umpire (CCP § 1281.6)
When two appraisers cannot agree on an umpire within the 15-day window provided by § 2071, either party may petition the court for appointment. Courts rely on Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.6, the arbitration statute governing appointment of neutral arbitrators, to make these appointments. This statute is the procedural bridge between appraisal and the California Arbitration Act — it is one of the clearest examples of how courts apply arbitration procedures to appraisal disputes without treating them as identical proceedings.
Challenging an Appraisal Award (CCP § 1288)
Because California courts treat appraisal awards under the procedural framework of the California Arbitration Act, the deadline to challenge an award comes from Code of Civil Procedure § 1288. A party must file a petition to vacate or correct the award within 100 days after service. If no petition is filed within that window, the award becomes final and may be confirmed by the superior court as an enforceable judgment. A petition to confirm must be filed within four years of the award. Grounds for vacatur include the same bases available for arbitration awards under CCP § 1286.2: the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; the panel exceeded its authority; or the rights of a party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of the panel.
SB 1899 and the Suit Limitation Period
The appraisal clause in § 2071 exists within a broader statutory fire policy that also includes a one-year suit limitation provision — requiring that any action against the insurer be "commenced within 12 months next after inception of the loss." In 2000, the Legislature enacted SB 1899 (Burton, Chapter 1090) in response to disputes arising from the 1994 Northridge earthquake, where many homeowners discovered damage years after the event and found their claims time-barred under the one-year limitation.
SB 1899 added Code of Civil Procedure § 340.9, which created a temporary statutory exception allowing certain previously time-barred Northridge earthquake claims to proceed even though the one-year limitation had expired. The bill did not permanently modify the one-year suit limitation rule in § 2071 — instead, it created a limited revival window for a specific category of claims. Its significance for appraisal practitioners is indirect but important: by enacting a statutory exception to a limitation period that appears in the policy form, SB 1899 confirmed that the Legislature retains authority to override these deadlines even when they appear in policy language — because the limitation is statutory, not purely contractual. Later amendments to § 2071 — including the 2001 changes to appraisal procedure (SB 658), the disaster exception, and the informal proceedings provision — built on this legislative foundation.
Appraisal and the California Arbitration Act
In Klubnikin v. California Fair Plan Association, 84 Cal.App.3d 393 (1978), the Court of Appeal held that appraisers empowered to determine actual cash value and loss under a fire insurance policy are arbitrators within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 1280. This classification carries significant procedural consequences: appraisal awards are subject to the same confirmation, vacatur, and enforcement procedures that govern arbitration awards under CCP §§ 1280-1294.2. The result is a hybrid system — substantive appraisal rights flow from the Insurance Code, while procedural enforcement flows from the Arbitration Act.
Informal Proceedings
California's statutory fire insurance policy provides that appraisal proceedings are "informal unless the insured and the insurer mutually agree otherwise." See California Insurance Code § 2071. The statute does not define "informal" or prescribe detailed procedures for conducting the appraisal. By providing that proceedings are "informal," the statute reflects the Legislature's intent that appraisal operate outside the formal procedural rules governing civil litigation unless the parties agree otherwise.
Bad Faith and Appraisal
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applies throughout the insurance relationship in California, including during the appraisal process. In Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., the California Supreme Court recognized a tort cause of action for insurer bad faith in first-party insurance claims. If an insurer unreasonably delays the payment of benefits or otherwise breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a policyholder may pursue a bad faith claim, which can include damages beyond the policy benefits.
California also regulates claim handling through the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations, California Code of Regulations Title 10 §§ 2695.1–2695.17. Although there is no private right of action under the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, California Insurance Code § 790.03 — as confirmed in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Cos. — violations of those statutes or regulations may be considered as evidence in a common-law bad faith claim.
State Regulator
California Department of Insurance (CDI)
The California Department of Insurance is the consumer protection agency for the nation's largest insurance marketplace. Unlike most states, California's Insurance Commissioner is an elected official — the position was created by voters through Proposition 103 in 1988. The Commissioner oversees insurer solvency, rate regulation, licensing, market conduct, consumer complaints, and insurance fraud investigation.
California does not license or register property insurance appraisers. The statutory standard — "competent and disinterested" — governs appraiser qualifications. Property insurance appraisers are distinct from real estate appraisers, who are licensed by the California Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers under a separate regulatory framework.
California Department of Insurance
Commissioner: Ricardo Lara (elected 2018, re-elected 2022)
Los Angeles, CA 90013 · (213) 346-6464
Sacramento, CA 95814 · (916) 492-3500
Oakland, CA 94612 · (415) 538-4500
Residual Market
California FAIR Plan
The California FAIR Plan Association was established in 1968 under California Insurance Code § 10091 et seq. as California's insurer of last resort. It is a private association composed of all property and casualty insurers licensed in the state, each contributing based on market share. The FAIR Plan provides basic property insurance coverage, primarily for fire and related perils, for properties that cannot obtain coverage in the traditional market.
The FAIR Plan has grown significantly since 2019, when enrollment was approximately 154,000 policies. By early 2026, the Plan covered more than 600,000 policies, making it one of the largest residual market mechanisms in the United States. Recent wildfire activity has resulted in significant FAIR Plan exposure and claims, prompting assessments on member insurers and rate increase filings. Residential dwelling coverage is currently capped at $3 million, subject to change.
Coverage: The standard FAIR Plan policy covers fire, lightning, internal explosion, and smoke. Optional extended coverage endorsements are available for windstorm, hail, riot, explosion, and other perils. FAIR Plan policies do not include theft, water damage, liability, or additional living expenses. As a result, policyholders typically obtain Difference in Conditions (DIC) policies from private insurers to supplement coverage. Whether the FAIR Plan will be required to offer broader residential coverage remains the subject of ongoing litigation and legislative activity.
Commercial coverage: The FAIR Plan also offers commercial property coverage. In 2025, the Insurance Commissioner approved a Commercial High Value (CHV) policy with expanded coverage limits for certain commercial and high-value risks. Program terms, limits, and availability may change, and practitioners should verify current details.
Appraisal: FAIR Plan policies incorporate the statutory appraisal framework set forth in California Insurance Code § 2071. Practitioners handling FAIR Plan claims should be aware that FAIR Plan policies may include distinct terms, conditions, and endorsements that differ from standard market homeowners policies.
Key Distinction
Appraisal vs. Arbitration in California
In California, appraisal is treated as a form of contractual arbitration — but with important distinctions. Louise Gardens of Encino Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., 82 Cal.App.4th 648 (2000), confirmed that appraisals are a form of arbitration subject to the contractual arbitration statutes.
Is appraisal binding in California?
Yes. An appraisal award in writing, signed by any two of the three panel members, determines the amount of actual cash value and loss. Because California treats appraisal as a form of arbitration, the award can be confirmed by the superior court as an enforceable judgment. If no petition to vacate is filed within 100 days of service, the award becomes final and cannot be challenged except on grounds available to attack any civil judgment.
Scope of Authority
Can Appraisers Determine Causation?
California law distinguishes between coverage determinations, which are reserved to courts, and valuation issues, which are resolved through appraisal. Appraisers may not interpret the insurance policy or decide whether a loss is covered. However, they may consider issues of causation to the extent necessary to determine the actual cash value or amount of loss.
In Jefferson Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court explained that the function of appraisers is to determine the amount of damage, not to resolve questions of coverage or policy interpretation. Subsequent decisions have applied this principle while recognizing that factual determinations necessary to value the loss may be addressed in appraisal.
For example, in Kacha v. Allstate Insurance Co., the court emphasized that appraisal is limited to determining the amount of loss, but acknowledged that appraisers may resolve factual issues related to the valuation of damaged property. Courts have also recognized that appraisal may proceed on disputed items subject to stated assumptions, with legal questions reserved for judicial determination. See Lee v. California Capital Insurance Co.
Accordingly, while appraisers may not decide coverage or interpret policy provisions, they may address causation issues insofar as they are necessary to determine the value of the loss.
📌 The practical line
California draws a stricter line than many states on causation in appraisal. The Kacha court held that appraisers exceeded their authority by assigning zero to items based on causation findings. The Lee court offered a practical middle ground: appraisal may proceed on disputed items using stated assumptions, allowing the panel to value the loss while preserving legal questions for judicial determination. Practitioners should be aware that California's scope limitations are narrower than states like Texas or Colorado.
Who Decides
Panel Composition
Every California insurance appraisal panel consists of three people. Each party selects one appraiser. The two appraisers together select the umpire. The panel's authority is limited to determining actual cash value and amount of loss.
California insurance appraisal panel composition — two party-selected appraisers and one jointly selected umpire
California's statutory standard requires that appraisers be "competent and disinterested." See California Insurance Code § 2071. In Gebers v. State Farm General Insurance Co., the Court of Appeal emphasized that appraisers must satisfy this statutory requirement of impartiality and that insurers may not dilute it through policy language. The court rejected an attempt to substitute the term "independent" for "disinterested," holding that the statutory standard controls.
The requirement that an appraiser be "disinterested" generally means the appraiser must not have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the appraisal beyond the agreed professional fee, and must be free from relationships or circumstances that would reasonably call the appraiser's impartiality into question. Unlike in some jurisdictions where party-appointed appraisers may act as advocates, California law requires all appraisers — not just the umpire — to be disinterested.
If the appraisers cannot agree on an umpire within 15 days, either party may request that a judge of a court of record appoint the umpire. See California Insurance Code § 2071.
Legal Precedent
Key Case Law
California has one of the deepest bodies of published appellate authority on property insurance appraisal in the United States. The California Supreme Court established the foundational scope limitations in 1970, and the Courts of Appeal have continued to refine the framework through a series of significant decisions.
Key milestones in California insurance appraisal law — from the 1970 scope definition through the 2017 ACV ruling
The California Supreme Court held that "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." This foundational decision established the scope limitations governing California appraisal for over 50 years.
The California Supreme Court recognized a tort cause of action for insurer bad faith in first-party insurance claims, holding that insurers owe a duty of good faith and fair dealing to their own policyholders. The Court further held that a breach of that duty may give rise to damages beyond the policy benefits, including emotional distress damages and, in appropriate cases, punitive damages.
The Court of Appeal held that appraisers empowered by a fire insurance policy to determine actual cash value and loss may be treated as arbitrators within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 1280 for purposes of judicial enforcement. As a result, appraisal awards are subject to the procedural framework governing arbitration, including confirmation and vacatur. An appraisal award must be challenged within the statutory time limits, including the 100-day period to petition to vacate or correct under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1288.
The insured claimed a set of 36 Indian paintings was stolen and demanded appraisal. The appraisal panel valued the paintings at $14,000, concluding they were of "average quality" rather than the higher quality claimed by the insured. The Court of Appeal held that the panel exceeded its authority by resolving issues that went beyond valuation.
The Court of Appeal held that an appraisal panel exceeded its authority by assigning no value to certain items of personal property based on its conclusion that the items were not damaged by a covered peril. The court emphasized that appraisal is limited to determining the amount of loss, and that issues of coverage are reserved for the courts.
The insured challenged the insurer's method of calculating depreciation following a fire loss and sought declaratory relief. The Court of Appeal held that appraisers are limited to determining the amount of loss and may not resolve legal questions, including interpretation of the insurance policy or governing statutes.
The Court of Appeal held that a trial court may order appraisal of disputed items even when the disputes involve issues of coverage, causation, or policy interpretation. The court explained that appraisal may proceed using stated assumptions, allowing the panel to determine the amount of loss while reserving legal questions for later resolution by the court.
The insured's kitchen was destroyed by fire. The fair market value of the entire home was approximately $75,000, while the cost to repair the damaged portion exceeded $300,000. The FAIR Plan argued its obligation was limited to fair market value. The Court of Appeal rejected that position, holding that for partial losses, actual cash value is measured by cost to repair or replace less depreciation, rather than fair market value.
Step by Step
The Appraisal Process in California
The following steps reflect the standard fire policy appraisal clause under Insurance Code § 2071. Specific policy language controls — deadlines and procedures may vary by insurer and policy form.
The California insurance appraisal process — 5 steps from written request to binding award under Insurance Code § 2071
How to Request Appraisal
A written request to the insurer triggers the appraisal process under the policy. The request should reference the applicable appraisal provision and identify the policyholder's selected appraiser, with a request that the insurer name its appraiser within 20 days, consistent with California Insurance Code § 2071.
Following the 2001 amendment (SB 658), the statute uses the term "request" rather than "demand" and includes the phrase "where the request is accepted." Despite this language, appraisal clauses are generally treated as enforceable contractual provisions. Courts may enforce appraisal agreements and, in some cases, apply procedural provisions from the California Arbitration Act.
The statute also includes provisions addressing appraisal in the context of certain government-declared disasters. Those provisions may affect how and when appraisal is invoked, and should be considered in disaster-related claims.
How Umpires Are Selected
After both appraisers are named, they attempt to agree on an umpire. If they cannot agree within 15 days, either party may request that a judge of a court of record in California make the appointment. The umpire must be competent and disinterested.
The Award
The appraisers separately determine the actual cash value and amount of loss for each item. If they agree, their written report determines the amounts. If they disagree, they submit their differences to the umpire. A written, itemized award signed by any two of the three panel members determines the actual cash value and loss. Payment is due 60 days after proof of loss is received and ascertainment of loss is made by agreement or award.
Challenging the Award
An appraisal award must be challenged within 100 days by filing a petition to vacate or correct the award under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1288. Grounds for vacatur are drawn from the California Arbitration Act, including those set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure § 1286.2, such as where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; the panel exceeded its authority; or the rights of a party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct.
If no petition is filed within the statutory period, the award generally becomes final and enforceable.
Duties & Deadlines
Statute of Limitations and Key Deadlines
California has multiple limitation periods relevant to property insurance claims.
| Claim Type | Limitation Period | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Breach of written contract | 4 years | CCP § 337 |
| Bad faith (tort) | 2 years | CCP § 335.1 |
| Standard fire policy suit clause | 12 months (subject to tolling) | Cal. Ins. Code § 2071 |
| Appraisal award challenge | 100 days | CCP § 1288 |
| Appraisal award confirmation | 4 years | CCP § 1288.4 |
Key limitation periods for California property insurance claims. Specific deadlines are fact-dependent and should be independently verified.
Breach of written contract: 4 years under CCP § 337. The limitations period generally begins to run at the time of breach.
Bad faith (tort): 2 years under CCP § 335.1. The claim accrues when the insured suffers appreciable harm and knew or should have known of the insurer's wrongful conduct.
Standard fire policy suit clause: California Insurance Code § 2071 contains a 12-month suit limitation provision requiring that any action be "commenced within 12 months next after inception of the loss." This period is subject to tolling. Under California law, the limitation period is tolled from the time the insured gives notice of the claim until the insurer formally denies the claim, at which point the remaining time resumes running.
Appraisal award challenge: 100 days from service of the award to file a petition to vacate or correct under CCP § 1288. This is a strict deadline — failure to act within this period generally renders the award final.
Appraisal award confirmation: 4 years from the date of the award to file a petition to confirm under CCP § 1288.4.
Resources & Primary Sources
The primary legal and regulatory sources referenced throughout this guide. All links point to official government sites, court databases, or established legal research platforms.
Legislative Watch
SB 495 (2025, effective January 1, 2026) — Requires insurers to advance 60% of personal property (contents) coverage limits, up to $350,000, to policyholders who suffer a total loss in a declared state of emergency, without requiring a detailed inventory for at least 100 days. Replaces the prior standard of 30% of contents limits, capped at $250,000.
AB 226 (2025) — FAIR Plan Stabilization Act — Authorizes the California FAIR Plan, with approval from the Insurance Commissioner, to access catastrophe financing mechanisms, including bonds and lines of credit, to support claim payments following large-scale loss events and reduce reliance on emergency assessments or rate increases.
Sustainable Insurance Strategy — The Department of Insurance has implemented a reform framework linking the use of wildfire catastrophe models to insurer obligations to write and maintain coverage in wildfire-prone areas. The Department completed its review of the first wildfire catastrophe model in July 2025. Implementation details and market participation requirements continue to evolve.
FAIR Plan Coverage and Litigation Developments — Ongoing administrative, legislative, and judicial developments address whether the FAIR Plan may be required to offer broader residential coverage beyond its traditional fire policy and endorsements. Practitioners should verify the current status of any pending litigation, regulatory action, or legislation.
AB 1680 (2026) — Make It FAIR Act (Pending) — A proposed reform measure supported by the Department of Insurance that would expand oversight and operational requirements for the FAIR Plan, including governance, claims handling, and market transition mechanisms.
SB 547 (2025, effective January 1, 2026) — Extends wildfire-related nonrenewal protections to certain commercial property insurance policies in areas affected by declared emergencies, expanding protections previously focused on residential risks.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. Under California Insurance Code § 2071, an award in writing by any two of the three panel members determines the amount of actual cash value and loss. The award is treated as an arbitration award and, once confirmed by a court, becomes an enforceable judgment.
Appraisers may not interpret the insurance policy or decide whether a loss is covered. However, they may consider issues of causation to the extent necessary to determine the actual cash value or amount of loss. Coverage determinations are reserved to courts, while valuation issues are resolved through appraisal.
In California, appraisal is treated as a form of contractual arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1280 et seq. Appraisal awards are subject to the same confirmation, vacatur, and enforcement procedures as arbitration awards, including a 100-day deadline to petition to vacate.
The California FAIR Plan is the state's insurer of last resort, established in 1968 under Insurance Code § 10091 et seq. It provides basic fire insurance coverage for properties that cannot obtain coverage in the traditional market.
Search the InsuranceAppraisal.com Directory
Qualified appraisers and umpires in California — searchable by location, specialty, and experience.
Find an Appraiser or UmpireSources & Citations
- 1California Department of Insurance, CDI.
- 2California Insurance Code § 2071 — Standard Fire Policy Appraisal Clause, Justia.
- 3California FAIR Plan Association, CFPNET.
- 4Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations, Cal. Code Regs. Title 10, §§ 2695.1–2695.17, Justia Regulations.
- 5Jefferson Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, (1970) 3 Cal.3d 398, Justia.
- 6Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., (1973) 9 Cal.3d 566, Justia.
- 7Klubnikin v. California Fair Plan Association, (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 393, Justia.
- 8Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Sharma, (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1060, Justia.
- 9Gebers v. State Farm General Insurance Co., (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1648, Justia.
- 10Kacha v. Allstate Insurance Co., (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1023, vLex.
- 11Kirkwood v. California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Insurance Bureau, (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 49, Justia.
- 12Lee v. California Capital Insurance Co., (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1154, Justia.
- 13California Fair Plan Assn. v. Garnes, (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1276, Justia.
Disclaimer
This guide is published for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Insurance appraisal law is complex and fact-specific. The appraisal provisions in any specific policy may differ materially from the statutory language discussed in this guide — policy form editions, carrier endorsements, manuscript policies, and surplus lines forms can vary significantly. California treats appraisal as a form of contractual arbitration, which means appraisal awards are subject to strict procedural deadlines (including a 100-day deadline to petition to vacate) that may result in the loss of legal rights if missed. Case holdings described in this guide may have been distinguished, modified, or superseded by subsequent decisions. Policyholders, carriers, public adjusters, claims professionals, and attorneys should consult a qualified legal professional before making decisions based on this information. Statutes, regulations, and judicial interpretations may have changed since publication. InsuranceAppraisal.com makes no representations or warranties regarding the completeness or accuracy of this content.
