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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property at 919 U.S. Hwy 281, Wichita Falls, Texas, from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025. The policy carried a $309,250.50 deductible for windstorm and/or hail coverage.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property. ProNet confirmed hail impact on April 5, 2025, producing dents and panel separations on the roofing, but found that water intrusion and interior damage predated the storm. Defendant also obtained a third-party contractor bid.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67. Plaintiff contended the estimate and ...
In the Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies.
Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy. The jury found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from Defendant Carol Gardina and $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages from Defendant George Gardina.
THE APPEAL
Defendants ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property at 919 U.S. Hwy 281, Wichita Falls, Texas, from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025. The policy carried a $309,250.50 deductible for windstorm and/or hail coverage.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property. ProNet confirmed hail impact on April 5, 2025, producing dents and panel separations on the roofing, but found that water intrusion and interior damage predated the storm. Defendant also obtained a third-party contractor bid.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67. Plaintiff contended the estimate and ...