Colorado Insurance Appraisal Law
The Colorado Supreme Court reads a policy's "impartial" appraiser requirement to bar appraisers from advocating for either side, and declined to hold that a contingent-cap fee agreement makes an appraiser partial as a matter of law.
Scope: Property insurance appraisal under policy appraisal clauses, as interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court. HB26-1247, a 2026 bill that would have required a statutory appraisal process in homeowner's policies, was not enacted (status: Lost). AUA has not yet reviewed Colorado Division of Insurance Bulletin B-5.26 from an official copy.
Partially reviewed Review due Verified against the linked sources on October 20, 2026 · next review January 18, 2027
| Subject | Colorado rule | Authority and related decisions |
|---|---|---|
| Contingency fees | Contingent-cap fee not partial per se. In Dakota Station, the court declined to hold that a contingent-cap fee agreement (capping the appraiser's fee at five percent of the award) rendered the appraiser partial as a matter of law. Neither party believed the cap applied, and the billed fees bore no apparent relation to the appraiser's estimates. The court said it was "wary of the possible incentives these agreements create." | Court decision Owners Insurance Co. v. Dakota Station II Condominium Ass'n, 2019 CO 65 Court decision Owners Insurance Co. v. Dakota Station II Condominium Ass'n (2019 CO 65, 2019) |
| Impartiality | Impartial means no advocacy. In Owners Insurance Co. v. Dakota Station II Condominium Ass'n, 2019 CO 65, the court held that a policy requiring each party to select an "impartial" appraiser requires appraisers to be "unbiased, disinterested, and unswayed by personal interest." They "must not favor one side more than another, so they may not advocate for either party." The ruling construes the policy language before the court. | Court decision Owners Insurance Co. v. Dakota Station II Condominium Ass'n, 2019 CO 65 Court decision Owners Insurance Co. v. Dakota Station II Condominium Ass'n (2019 CO 65, 2019) |
Not yet reviewed for Colorado: state license, umpire selection, causation, coverage, award, deadlines.
Colorado authorities by category
Administrative rules and codes
Regulator: Colorado Division of Insurance
Colorado court decisions
- Owners Insurance Co. v. Dakota Station II Condominium Ass'n (2019 CO 65, 2019) (Supreme Court of Colorado): A policy requirement that each party select an "impartial" appraiser means appraisers must be unbiased, disinterested and unswayed by personal interest, and may not advocate for either party. The contingent-cap fee agreement in the case did not make the appraiser partial as a matter of law. Subjects: Impartiality, Contingency fees
Research, not legal advice. Each entry summarizes the linked statute, regulation, guidance or court decision as checked on the date shown. Laws change, policy wording controls, and courts in the same state can disagree. Read the source and consult a licensed attorney before relying on any entry. Coverage is not yet exhaustive: states marked "Not yet reviewed" have not been researched, not "no rule".
← All states · Colorado in the research library · Colorado decisions
Frequently asked questions
Can appraisers or umpires be paid based on the outcome in Colorado?
Contingent-cap fee not partial per se. In Dakota Station, the court declined to hold that a contingent-cap fee agreement (capping the appraiser's fee at five percent of the award) rendered the appraiser partial as a matter of law. Neither party believed the cap applied, and the billed fees bore no apparent relation to the appraiser's estimates. The court said it was "wary of the possible incentives these agreements create."
What impartiality standard applies to appraisers in Colorado?
Impartial means no advocacy. In Owners Insurance Co. v. Dakota Station II Condominium Ass'n, 2019 CO 65, the court held that a policy requiring each party to select an "impartial" appraiser requires appraisers to be "unbiased, disinterested, and unswayed by personal interest." They "must not favor one side more than another, so they may not advocate for either party." The ruling construes the policy language before the court.