The Golden v. State Farm Insurance Controversy: A Call for Impartiality in Appraisal

In the world of insurance claims, appraisal can be a contentious issue. Recently, the case of Golden v. State Farm Insurance has raised questions about the impartiality of appraisers and their relationship with insurance companies. The story is complex, and its details are set to unfold at this year's TAPIA conference on Friday.

At the heart of the controversy is the practice of paying appraisers on a contingent basis. In other words, appraisers are paid only when they produce a report that favors the insurance company. This raises serious concerns about bias and impartiality. When an appraiser relies heavily on income from a single party - in this case, State Farm Insurance - can we truly expect them to be objective in their assessments?

The case of Tim Marshall, HAAG's chief engineer and owner, is particularly instructive. According to reports, Marshall made at least 25% of his personal income from State Farm Insurance, and was designated as an 'impartial' appraiser. This raises the question: would you trust someone with such a significant financial stake in the outcome to make an impartial assessment?

The issue is not limited to Tim Marshall or HAAG alone. Many public adjusters and policyholders are calling for appraisers to be paid on a contingency fee basis, rather than by the insurance company. This approach would eliminate any perceived bias and ensure that appraisers prioritize fairness and accuracy over financial gain.

In considering these issues, it's essential to apply the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. Would you want an appraiser who was heavily reliant on income from one party to make a fair assessment of your property damage? Probably not. By demanding impartiality in appraisal, we can ensure that insurance claims are resolved fairly and that policyholders receive the compensation they deserve.

Golden v. state farm insurance