Decision-makers rely on experts who often disagree. Aversion to expertdisagreement is usually modelled with ambiguity-averse preferences which rest on a unanimity principle: if according to all experts one choice is better than another, so should the decision-maker. Such unanimity among experts however can be spurious, masking substantial disagreement on the underly ingreasons. We introduce a novel notion of disagreement aversion to distinguishspurious from genuine unanimity. We develop a model centered around the cautious aggregation of expert beliefs that is able to capture that novel notion of disagreement aversion. We provide formal results and illustrate them in applications. (with Antoine Bommier, Arnaud Goussebaïle and Daniel Heyen)