← University
Working With Adjusters: Roles, Rights, and Friction Points
0 of 6

A mid-sized food processing company in southwestern Ontario had maintained commercial property and business interruption coverage through a national insurer for 8 years without filing a significant claim. The policy, renewed annually with coverage limits adjusted to reflect the company's growing operations, included endorsements for equipment breakdown, spoilage, and extended business interruption tied to supply chain disruptions. The company employed approximately 120 workers across 2 shifts and supplied prepared food products to institutional clients including hospitals, schools, and long-term care facilities throughout the region.

In the 3rd week of operations following a scheduled equipment upgrade, a refrigeration system failure resulted in catastrophic spoilage of inventory valued by the company at approximately $340,000. The failure also damaged temperature-sensitive processing equipment and forced a production shutdown lasting 19 days while replacement parts were sourced and installed. During the shutdown, the company lost contracts with 2 institutional clients who could not wait for production to resume and required immediate alternative suppliers. The company's internal estimates placed total losses, including property damage, spoiled inventory, lost revenue, and contract penalties, at approximately $1.2 million.

The insurer assigned the claim to an independent adjusting firm rather than handling it through staff adjusters. The lead adjuster retained by the independent firm began the investigation within 5 business days of the loss notification, requesting extensive documentation including maintenance records for the refrigeration system, inventory logs, supplier contracts, and 3 years of financial statements to support the business interruption component. The company's risk manager, who had limited experience with commercial claims of this magnitude, found the documentation requests broader than anticipated and the timeline for responses shorter than seemed workable given the operational disruption the company was still managing.

Within 6 weeks of the loss, disagreements emerged on multiple fronts. The adjuster's preliminary assessment valued the spoiled inventory at $195,000 rather than the company's claimed $340,000, citing questions about the inventory valuation methodology and the condition of certain products prior to the refrigeration failure. The adjuster also questioned whether the lost institutional contracts fell within the policy's business interruption coverage or represented consequential losses beyond the policy's scope. Correspondence between the adjuster and the company's risk manager became increasingly formal, with each party citing policy language to support divergent interpretations.

The company retained a public adjuster to assist with documentation and presentation of the claim. The insurer's adjuster acknowledged the public adjuster's involvement but noted that the retention would not alter the insurer's coverage analysis. The claim remained unresolved, with the company facing ongoing financial pressure from the production disruption while navigating an adjustment process that had become adversarial in tone and uncertain in outcome.

Common Friction Points in the Adjustment Process: Delays, Scope Disputes, and Low Offers

The relationship between policyholders and adjusters, whether independent or staff adjusters employed by insurers, operates within a framework of mutual obligation and regulated practice. Yet within this framework, certain points of friction emerge with notable regularity. Understanding these friction points requires more than surface familiarity with claims procedure; it demands a substantive grasp of the regulatory environment, the practical constraints on all parties, and the strategic approaches available when disagreements arise. Delays in claims handling, disputes over the scope of covered losses, and settlement offers perceived as inadequate represent the three most common categories of friction, and each carries distinct implications for policyholders, their representatives, and the professionals who advise them.

The legal foundation for claims handling in Canada derives from a combination of provincial insurance statutes, common law duties of good faith, and the contractual terms embedded in policy wordings. In common law provinces, the duty of good faith operates as an implied term in every insurance contract, requiring insurers to act fairly and reasonably in investigating and settling claims. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., released in February 2002, remains a landmark articulation of this duty, establishing that insurers who act in bad faith may face punitive damages of substantial magnitude. In Quebec, the Civil Code of Quebec imposes similar obligations through articles governing the performance of contracts in good faith, particularly articles 6, 7, and 1375, which apply broadly to contractual relationships including insurance agreements. The Insurance Act in Ontario, the Insurance Act in British Columbia, and corresponding legislation in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Atlantic provinces each establish regulatory frameworks governing claims handling practices, though the specific provisions vary by jurisdiction. As of the date of authorship, all provincial insurance regulators maintain guidelines or bulletins addressing unfair claims settlement practices, drawing in many cases on model provisions developed through the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $149 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.