Two Adjusters Disagree With Each Other: Decision Tree
Why this matters
A claim gets reassigned, a second opinion is called in, or a re-inspection brings out a different adjuster, and now you have two carrier representatives who read the same damage differently. This is more common than it sounds, especially on catastrophe claims worked by a rotating pool of independent adjusters, or when a supervisor reviews a file and takes a different position than the original adjuster. Caught in the middle, you can either get pulled into relitigating your whole scope from scratch, or you can hold your ground on your own documentation while staying out of an internal disagreement that is not yours to referee.
Start here: whose file is it right now
Before responding to either adjuster, confirm who currently has decision authority on the claim. This is usually the most recent adjuster assigned, or the supervisor if the file has been escalated, but do not assume; ask directly. "Just so I'm working with the right person, who's the adjuster of record on this claim right now?" This single question avoids wasting time negotiating with someone whose position has already been superseded.
If the second adjuster disagrees with an item the first one already approved
If an item was approved in writing by the original adjuster and a new adjuster now disputes it, your position is strong: point to the existing written approval and ask for clarification on what has changed. "This line was approved on [date] by [name], can you help me understand what's prompting the reconsideration?" This is not combative, it is a reasonable question, and it puts the burden on the carrier to explain why an already-approved item is being revisited rather than on you to re-argue something already settled.
If the new adjuster reverses a written approval, this is worth escalating to a supervisor. A carrier reversing its own documented approval without new information is a legitimate point to push back on, calmly and in writing.
If the second adjuster disagrees with an item that was still pending or verbal-only
If the item in question was never actually confirmed in writing, a new adjuster taking a different view is not a reversal, it is simply the claim being decided by whoever currently holds it. Present your documentation fresh, as if for the first time, without referencing what the first adjuster "said," since an unconfirmed verbal carries little weight in this situation. See related content on verbal versus written approval for why this gap matters.
If the two adjusters are actively disagreeing with each other, not just with you
Sometimes you find yourself on a call or in an email thread where a field adjuster and a desk reviewer, or an independent adjuster and a supervisor, are visibly not aligned.
- Do not take a side or amplify the disagreement. Your role is to provide your documentation to whoever is asking, consistently, regardless of which internal position it happens to support.
- Give the same answer to both. If asked the same question by each adjuster, answer identically both times, from your actual findings. Do not tailor your answer to whichever adjuster seems more sympathetic to a larger scope; this is exactly the kind of inconsistency that damages your credibility if either adjuster compares notes with the other, which they often do.
- Let them resolve their internal disagreement without your input on which of them is right. You are not positioned to know their internal review standards, and offering an opinion on which adjuster's read is correct puts you in the middle of a dispute that is not about your scope, it is about their process.
If a re-inspection produces a materially different scope than the original
If a re-inspection adjuster's estimate differs significantly from the original inspection, and you believe the original was more accurate to the actual site condition, present your own independent documentation (your photos, your measurements, taken at the time of the original inspection if possible) as the stable reference point. Your own consistent record across both inspections is your strongest asset here, since it does not shift depending on which adjuster is currently reviewing the file.
What to avoid
- Playing one adjuster's position against the other to try to get the more favorable number to stick. This is transparent to experienced adjusters and damages trust with both.
- Assuming the most recent adjuster is automatically wrong just because it differs from what you originally expected. Reassignments sometimes catch a genuine error in the first estimate.
- Getting drawn into commenting on carrier process ("your company should really get its adjusters on the same page") even when it is tempting. It does not move your specific claim forward and can read as unprofessional regardless of how justified the frustration is.
Quick recap
Confirm who currently holds decision authority before responding to anyone. Lean on written, already-approved items as your strongest ground; treat unconfirmed verbal items as open again under a new reviewer. Give identical, honest answers to every adjuster who asks, regardless of who seems more favorable. Stay out of the carrier's internal disagreement and let your own consistent documentation be the thing that does not change no matter who is reviewing the file.
References
- Trade-standard practice for insurance-claim re-inspection and file reassignment
- Insurance Information Institute, claims review and escalation process overview
- See related: Verbal Approval vs Written Approval Decision Tree, The Second Inspection: When the Adjuster Comes Back