What Is a First Party Property Adjuster?
Post 5006
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g_SrF7bk, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gh5T2wHJ and at https://lnkd.in/gggeUVsq and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
The First Person an Insured Meets from the Insurer is an Adjuster
An “adjuster” or “insurance adjuster” is, by statutory definition: “a person, co-partnership or corporation who undertakes to ascertain and report the actual loss to the subject-matter of insurance due to the hazard insured against.” [California Insurance Code Section 14021]
A first party property adjuster is a specialist in adjusting claims brought by a person or entity insured against certain identified perils or risks of loss to real or personal property.
Insurance companies create, by issuing an insurance policy, a contractual obligation to pay valid claims from those insured. To do so insurers understand that the person insured is not able to prove the cause and extent of loss without assistance. Therefore, insurers dispatch a person with special knowledge – the first party property adjuster – to separate fact from fiction, to establish cause and origin of the claimed loss, and determine sufficient information to enable the insurance company to determine the amounts necessary to indemnify the insured as the policy promised.
The adjuster is also present to distinguish the valid claim from a claim for which the insurance company is not liable under its policy, whether due to the terms and conditions of the policy or because of attempted fraud.
The Proof of Loss
Some policies, like those issued under the National Flood Insurance Program Act (NFPA) specifically state that the claimant must use his own judgment in estimating the amount of loss and that the assistance of an insurance adjuster is provided as a “courtesy only.”
The insured must, therefore, when dealing with a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), prepare and submit to the insurer servicing the government program, a proof of loss within 60 days after the loss. This requirement must be fulfilled even if the adjuster does not furnish the form or help the insured complete it.
The Reason for an Adjuster
Since the invention of the adjuster more than a century ago, the first person from the insurer that the insured meets when he or she suffers a first party property loss, is the adjuster. The claim adjuster was invented to smooth the claims process and be certain that the insured receives the indemnity promised.
How well the adjuster does his or her job will increase the reputation of the insurer and will not only keep the insured as a customer he or she will add additional customers by word of mouth.
Although most adjusters are not trained to be marketers their professionalism will act as the most effective marketing an insurer can receive better than any television ad.
The Duties Imposed on the Adjuster
Every modern claim adjuster must understand that it is his or her duty to aid the insurer provide the benefits promised by the policy.
An adjuster’s duties to the insured do not arise from the insurance contract. The adjuster is not a party to the contract. He or she is an employee or agent of the insurer.
For the adjuster to owe the insured a duty to act with reasonable care, a contractual relationship must exist between the adjuster and the insured.
The Reasons for Which an Adjuster May be Sued
Although not a party to the contract adjusters are sued in cases against insurers to defeat diversity and keep the case out of federal court. In a case where Allstate Insurance Company ratified the actions of an adjuster named Berry and her conduct and explained that Berry’s actions as Allstate’s in-house adjuster were at issue in a federal action. It was her conduct on Allstate’s behalf that the federal jury found to be reasonable. [Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kenick, 435 P.3d 938 (Alaska 2019)]
Every person in the business of insurance or who are insured by a policy of first party property insurance, must understand that an insurance adjuster is a person engaged in the business of insurance to investigate and resolve insurance claims. The first party property insurance adjuster limits his or her activities to the investigation and adjustment of first party property claims like fire, lightning, windstorm, hail, theft, etc.
The duty of the adjuster is to ascertain and determine the amount compensable by the policy of any claim, loss or damage payable under an insurance contract, and/or effecting settlement of such claim, loss or damage.
Although the employee adjuster does not owe a special duty to the insureds on which the bad faith tort could be based against the adjuster, he or she owes the duty to the insurer employer to treat the insured fairly and in good faith. Although the adjuster cannot commit the tort of bad faith the actions of the adjuster can create facts sufficient to allow the insured to establish that the insurer breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because the agent’s wrongful acts are the obligation of the insurer. [Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co., 9 Cal.3d 566, 108 Cal.Rptr. 480, 510 P.2d 1032]
In Texas an adjuster, with regard to acts undertaken in the business of insurance, can breach the statutes requiring that the adjuster and insurer act in good faith and deal fairly with the insured. [Tex. Ins. Code § 541.002(2); Hornbuckle v. State Farm Lloyds, 385 F.3d 538, 544 (5th Cir. 2004); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 482, 486 (Tex. 1998), LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (S.D. Tex., 2018)]
Regardless of the jurisdiction the adjuster must conduct himself or herself in such a way that there will never be an issue that the insurer breached the contract directly or through the adjuster’s action. Although protected from individual tort liability in almost every state, an adjuster acting in bad faith that exposes the insurer to a bad faith judgment will probably cause the adjuster to lose his or her job.
Adapted from my book “The Compact Book of Adjusting Property Claims Fourth Edition” Available as a hardcover here. Available as a Kindle Book here. Available as a paperback here
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...