What to do after a low offer

Read the response for its inputs, not its conclusion

The number at the bottom is the least informative part of the response. What matters is what went into it, because inputs are auditable and conclusions are not. Work through the response and write down each input you can identify, along with what your documentation says about it.

If the response gives no basis at all, that is itself the first thing to address. Ask in writing for the basis of the valuation: the base value used, how severity was characterised, what adjustments were applied, and whether comparable vehicles were considered. A figure you cannot audit is a figure you cannot answer, and asking for the basis is a reasonable request that belongs on the record.

• What base value did it start from, and does that match your documented pre-accident value?
• How was the damage characterised, and does that match your final repair invoice?
• Was a mileage or condition adjustment applied, and how much of the reduction does it account for?
• Were comparable vehicles considered, and are they genuinely comparable to yours?
• Does the response contain anything factually wrong about your vehicle?

Quantify the gap before deciding anything

Put the offer next to your documented estimate and look at the difference as both a dollar figure and a percentage. An offer at seventy percent of a well-supported estimate is a different situation from one at twenty percent, and the amount of remaining effort each justifies is different too.

Be honest with yourself about your own file at this point. If your pre-accident value is unsupported or you never gathered comparable listings, the most productive next step may be closing those gaps rather than writing a rebuttal. A response that arrives with evidence that was not in the original submission gives the file a genuine reason to be re-evaluated.

Respond point by point, in writing

The effective response is short, structured, and boring. Take each stated reason in the insurer's response, address it in a sentence or two, and attach the specific document that speaks to it. Number your points to match theirs where you can. A reader should be able to see, for each of their reasons, exactly what you are saying and what you have attached.

Avoid re-arguing the whole claim from the beginning, and avoid a general objection that the figure is unfair. If the severity characterisation is wrong, quote the invoice line that shows it. If the base value is low, attach your valuation support. If the response relied on a formula, attach your comparable listings, because that answers a question the formula never asked.

1. Reference the claim number and the date of your original submission.
2. Address each stated reason individually, in their order.
3. Attach the specific document that addresses each point, labelled to match.
4. Add any evidence that was not in your original file, and say plainly that it is new.
5. Restate the amount you are presenting and ask for a written response by a specific date.

Asking for a supervisory review

If a documented, point-by-point response does not move the figure, you can ask for the file to be reviewed by a supervisor or manager. Make the request in writing and make it easy to act on: the claim number, a list of what you submitted and when, the amount you are presenting, and a plain statement that you are asking for a review of the valuation and its basis.

The aim is to put a complete and organised file in front of someone who has not already formed a view of it. That works considerably better when the file is genuinely complete, which is why it is worth closing evidence gaps before making the request rather than after.

When a regulator complaint makes sense

Every state has an insurance regulator that accepts consumer complaints about claim handling. It is important to understand what that process does and does not do: it examines conduct, not valuation. No regulator is going to decide what your vehicle is worth.

That makes a complaint most useful for process failures. An unanswered written demand with proof of delivery, a refusal to state any basis for a figure, or contradictory information from different people on the same file are all conduct issues. A disagreement about the size of a well-explained valuation generally is not, and filing on that basis is unlikely to help.

• A written demand with proof of delivery that went unanswered.
• A refusal to provide any basis for a figure, after a written request.
• Contradictory information from different people about the same claim.
• Long unexplained delays after complete information was provided.

When to bring in a professional instead

Documentation has limits, and recognising them is part of using it well. Some situations are better served by someone with credentials, a physical inspection, or the ability to represent you, and continuing to send letters in those situations costs time without improving the outcome.

If your claim is large enough that professional fees are a small fraction of it, if the vehicle is high-value or specialty, if liability is genuinely disputed, if a full release was already signed, or if your policy has an appraisal provision you are considering invoking, that is the point to talk to a licensed professional or a qualified attorney. Our own estimate flags several of these situations and tells you so directly, because selling a documentation package into a claim that needs a physical inspection is not a trade we want to make.