← 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.

When to Push Back and How to Do It Without Damaging the Claim

Insurance claims involve an inherent tension between the interests of the insured seeking full indemnification and the insurer's obligation to assess claims fairly while protecting against overpayment or fraud. This tension does not make insurers adversaries, nor does it mean policyholders must accept every decision without question. The relationship between a claimant and an adjuster is fundamentally one of negotiation within a framework of contractual rights, statutory obligations, and professional standards. Understanding when and how to push back against an adjuster's position is essential for any professional advising clients on claims matters, whether as a broker, public adjuster, legal counsel, or risk manager. The key lies in distinguishing between legitimate disagreement grounded in policy interpretation, evidence, or valuation methodology and unproductive confrontation that damages the claim's progress and the claimant's credibility.

The legal foundation for pushback rights derives from the insurance contract itself and the statutory framework governing insurance in each province. In all Canadian jurisdictions, the policy constitutes a binding agreement, and the insurer owes duties of good faith and fair dealing in its administration. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Company established that insurers owe a duty of good faith and must not act in bad faith by denying claims without reasonable grounds or through a process designed to frustrate legitimate claimants. This duty does not mean every denial is actionable or that every disagreement rises to bad faith, but it does mean that insureds have a right to transparent, reasonable claims handling. In Ontario, the Insurance Act grants the Superintendent authority over market conduct, including claims practices, and similar provisions exist in British Columbia under the Insurance Act and its regulations, in Alberta under the Alberta Insurance Act, and in other common law provinces. Quebec operates under the Civil Code of Quebec, which imposes obligations of good faith in contractual relationships under articles 6, 7, and 1375, and the Autorité des marchés financiers regulates insurer conduct in that province. As of the date of authorship, these statutory frameworks universally recognize that policyholders are entitled to fair treatment, access to information about their claims, and a meaningful opportunity to dispute adverse decisions.

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.