Why starting with a policyholder’s loss adjuster is often better than going to court

When an insurance company rejects a claim or offers compensation far below the real cost of repair, the most common reaction is to think that going to court is the only solution.

That reaction is understandable.
But in most cases, it is not the best first step.

As we explain in our article on why most insurance claims are not legal problems but technical ones, the real conflict is rarely about the law itself. It is about how the damage has been valued.

The natural reaction when the insurer does not pay

For many policyholders, the reasoning is simple:

• there is a contract
• the insurer does not comply
• someone must force them to pay

And that is when the idea of legal action appears.

The problem is that a court case does not fix a poor damage assessment.
It only decides based on the evidence already presented.

What a judge actually decides in an insurance dispute

A judge does not:

• inspect the property
• measure the damage
• calculate repair costs
• determine construction or restoration values

A judge reviews reports and decides which technical position is better supported.

If the only report available is the insurer’s, or if the policyholder’s report is weak or incomplete, the chances of success are limited.

The mistake of going to court without proving the damage

Many claims reach court with:

• incomplete valuations
• poorly documented damage
• generic cost breakdowns
• non-specialized reports

In these situations:

• proceedings take much longer
• costs increase
• outcomes are uncertain
• frustration grows

Not because of a lack of rights, but because of a lack of solid technical evidence.

What a policyholder’s loss adjuster makes possible before going to court

Appointing a policyholder’s loss adjuster allows the claim to be addressed at its core: the valuation of damage.

A loss adjuster acting for the policyholder can:

• analyze the damage in detail
• identify omitted items
• correct undervaluations
• review measurements and criteria
• negotiate technically with the insurer’s adjuster

In practice, many disputes are resolved at this stage, without ever reaching court.

Why this approach is usually faster and more effective

Starting with a policyholder’s loss adjuster is often better because:

• it addresses the real problem
• it avoids months or years of litigation
• it reduces emotional and financial stress
• it strengthens the claim from the outset

And if legal action eventually becomes necessary, the case is brought forward with:

• clearly proven damage
• a well-supported valuation
• a much stronger technical position

What happens if the adjusters cannot reach an agreement?

When the policyholder’s adjuster and the insurer’s adjuster fail to agree, a next step exists: the appointment of a third adjuster.

The third adjuster:

• reviews both technical positions
• issues an impartial valuation

This mechanism exists for precisely these situations, but it is not always necessary if the claim has been properly prepared from the beginning.

When does going to court make sense?

Legal action is not ruled out.

It makes sense when:

• the damage has been correctly assessed
• the valuation is clear and defensible
• there is an unjustified refusal to pay

But it should always be the final step, not the starting point.

Conclusion

Most insurance claims are not won in court, but long before that.

They are won when:

• the damage is properly analyzed
• the valuation is accurate
• and the dispute is addressed from a technical standpoint

Before going to court, the damage must be proven.
And for that, a policyholder’s loss adjuster is often the best place to start.

Does it make sense to review your claim?

If your compensation does not cover the real cost of repair, or the insurer closed the file without proper analysis, a technical review can clarify the situation.

👉 Learn how we handle insurance claims here:
Our insurance claim services