Public adjuster

Public Adjuster Estimate Reconciliation Template & Example

Last updated 2026-08-14

A carrier that receives a second estimate almost never adopts it. What moves a claim is not a rival document but a reconciliation: a line-by-line account of where the two estimates differ, what each difference is worth, and what evidence supports the insured's figure on that specific line.

The distinction matters because the two produce different conversations. A competing estimate invites the reply that the carrier prefers its own, which ends the exchange. A reconciliation asks about twenty-three individual lines, and each one has to be answered or conceded on its own terms.

The scope of loss sheet covers how to build the scope itself — room-ordered, price-free, continuously numbered. This page is what happens after: pricing that scope and setting it against the carrier's. The worked example reconciles the Harbour Lane estimate and finds that most of the gap sits in three lines, not across the file.

Jurisdiction

Written primarily against US first-party property practice. Claim handling is regulated state by state — acknowledgment and response deadlines, prompt-payment requirements, adjuster licensing and unfair claims practices standards all differ — and the policy actually issued governs the claim. Where a page cites a statute, model act or regulation, confirm what applies in the state where the loss occurred. Outside the US, treat the structure as transferable and the legal references as not.

Public Adjuster Estimate Reconciliation template

Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.

Download .docx Try this template in Professional Drafter

When to use this document

The carrier's estimate is in, the insured disputes it, and the difference needs to be made specific before anyone talks about numbers.
Preparing the evidentiary basis for a supplement, or for an appraisal demand that may follow.
The gap is being described in conversation as 'about twenty thousand', which is not a claim anyone can pay.

Worked example

Fictional scenario: reconciliation of the Harbour Lane water loss, claim PC-2026-11482. Carrier estimate $18,340 dated 31 July 2026; insured's estimate $29,880. The $11,540 gap turns out to sit almost entirely in three lines, and one line goes the carrier's way.

Basis and documents relied on

Carrier estimate reconciled: [Carrier] estimate dated 31 July 2026, revision 1, received 31 July 2026. Confirmed with R. Calloway on 12 August 2026 that revision 1 is current and no revision 2 exists.

That confirmation took one phone call and is recorded because reconciling a superseded estimate is the most avoidable way to lose a fortnight.

Insured's estimate: prepared 19 August 2026 by Merrow Loss Consulting from measurements taken on site 13 August 2026 by T. Halvorsen. Price list: [regional list] effective July 2026, the same month as the carrier's.

Specialist evidence: moisture mapping report by Kestrel Restoration dated 16 July 2026, commissioned by the insured before this firm was engaged, with readings at 14 points across the ground floor.

Summary of the difference

Carrier total:: $18,340.00
Insured total:: $29,880.00
Difference:: $11,540.00

Cause | Lines affected | Amount

Scope omitted | 3 | $9,180.00

Quantity difference | 4 | $1,940.00

Unit price difference | 6 | $610.00

Method or specification difference | 1 | $310.00

Insured's figure LOWER than carrier's | 1 | ($500.00)

Eighty percent of the gap is three omitted scope lines. That is the sentence this table exists to produce. A carrier reading 'the estimate is $11,540 short' has to defend an entire document; a carrier reading 'three lines account for $9,180' has to decide about three lines, and two of them are not seriously arguable.

Line-by-line reconciliation

14 | Paint walls, living room | 2 coats | 2 coats | +$310 | Method:: sealer required over water-staining

Six further lines differ on unit price by $610 in aggregate. They are listed in the attached schedule and are not pressed individually — a reconciliation that fights every rounding difference teaches the reader that none of the differences are serious.

Evidence for each contested line

Line 7, subfloor: Kestrel moisture map dated 16 July 2026, readings at points K3, K5 and K7 recording 24%, 22% and 25% against a 12% dry standard for the material. Photographs 44-51 taken 13 August after flooring removal show visible delamination at the same three locations. The carrier's inspection on 18 July preceded flooring removal, which is a fair explanation for the omission and is why this is presented as an omission rather than an error.

Line 11, cabinetry: photographs 52-58 show the cabinet bases in place with a visible tide line at 4 inches and swelling at the toe kick on units 3, 4 and 5. Manufacturer specification attached: particleboard core, no repair method published for water intrusion, replacement only.

Line 19, contents manipulation: not evidenced by a photograph but by necessity — lines 7 and 11 cannot be performed with the contents in place. If lines 7 and 11 are declined, line 19 falls with them, and we say so rather than leaving three lines to be argued as though they were independent.

Line 22, drying duration: Kestrel equipment log, pages 2-3, recording placement 14 July and collection 21 July. Seven days on site is a document, not an opinion.

Line 14, sealer: manufacturer's specification for the coating system, section 4.2, requiring a stain-blocking primer over water-staining before topcoat. The carrier's line prices two coats without a primer, which is not a quantity dispute but a method one.

No line here rests on 'industry standard'. Every contested line has a photograph number, a log page, a reading or a specification section, because a line supported by a general proposition is a line the carrier can decline without saying anything specific in reply.

Items not in dispute, and what is requested

Agreed without qualification: all mitigation lines other than 22, all electrical, all of the utility room scope, and both plumbing repair lines. That is 31 of 40 lines and $16,890 of the carrier's total.

One line goes the carrier's way. Line 38, ceiling texture in the hallway: the carrier priced 84 SF at $6.10 where the current list gives $4.90. Their figure is $500 too HIGH and our estimate reflects the lower rate. Disclosed because it was found in the same review that found the rest, and a reconciliation that only ever corrects in one direction is a negotiating position wearing the clothes of an analysis.

Requested:

1. A revised estimate incorporating lines 7, 11 and 19, or a written position on each stating the basis for declining it.

2. A re-inspection of the kitchen, which the carrier last saw on 18 July before flooring and cabinetry removal. We will make the property available on any weekday with 48 hours' notice.

3. Confirmation of the line 22 drying duration against the Kestrel log.

We ask for a response by 2 September 2026, fourteen days from the date of this document. If the contested lines remain unresolved after re-inspection, the insured's options include a supplement or a demand for appraisal, and we would rather reach agreement than either.

Section-by-section guide

What each section is for, what a good one contains, and where they typically go wrong.

1.Basis and documents relied on

State which version of the carrier's estimate is being reconciled — by date and revision — and what the insured's estimate is built from: measurements taken on site and by whom, the price list and its date, and any specialist report. A reconciliation against a superseded estimate is wasted work, and it is the first thing a carrier will point out.

2.Summary of the difference

One table at the top: carrier total, insured total, difference, and the difference split into its causes — scope items omitted, quantity differences, unit price differences, and items where the two agree on scope but disagree on method. A reader who sees that most of the gap is three lines treats the file differently from one who sees an unexplained lump sum.

3.Line-by-line reconciliation

One row per disputed line, carrying the carrier's line reference so it can be found in their own file. Give the carrier's quantity and price, the insured's, the difference, and the reason in a few words. Keep agreed lines out — a reconciliation that reproduces the whole estimate buries the twenty lines that matter among two hundred that do not.

4.Evidence for each contested line

Each difference needs its own support, and the support has to be specific to the line rather than to the claim. A photograph showing the affected area, a measurement, a moisture reading, a manufacturer specification requiring a particular method, a code provision. A line supported by 'industry standard' is a line that will be declined, because there is nothing there to check.

5.Items not in dispute

Say what is agreed, and say it early. It shortens the argument, it demonstrates that the reconciliation is an analysis rather than a reflex, and it prevents the reply that the insured disputes everything. Where the insured's estimate is lower than the carrier's on a line, say that too — it happens, and disclosing it buys more credibility than it costs.

6.What is requested, and by when

Close with the specific ask: a revised estimate, a re-inspection of named areas, or a written position on each contested line. Give a date, and say what happens next if it passes — usually a supplement or an appraisal demand. A reconciliation that ends without a request is a document the recipient can file.

Common mistakes

The failure modes that show up most often when this document is reviewed later.

Sending a competing estimate with no reconciliation

A carrier presented with a rival document prefers its own, and the exchange ends there. A reconciliation makes the carrier answer specific lines, which is a different and much harder thing to decline.

Reconciling against a superseded estimate

The work is wasted and the credibility loss is disproportionate — it is the first thing the recipient notices and it colours everything else in the document. Confirm the current revision before starting.

Supporting a line with 'industry standard' or 'customary practice'

There is nothing there for the reader to check, so the line can be declined without a substantive reply. Every contested line needs a photograph number, a reading, a log page or a specification section.

Disputing every unit price difference

A document that fights $12 rounding differences alongside a $5,768 omitted scope line invites the reader to treat both the same way. Aggregate the trivial differences and press the ones that matter.

Concealing lines where the insured's own figure is lower

They get found, and when they do, every other line becomes suspect. Disclosing them costs a few hundred dollars and buys the credibility that carries the lines worth thousands.

Presenting dependent lines as independent

Where a line only exists because two others do — contents manipulation to enable a floor replacement — saying so prevents a partial approval that funds an impossible sequence.

Questions

Should the reconciliation go to the adjuster or to a supervisor?: To the assigned adjuster first, in almost every case. Escalating a document the handler has not yet seen produces a defensive read of it, and the handler is the person who can actually revise the estimate. Escalate on non-response, not on disagreement.
What if the carrier will not re-inspect?: Record the request and the refusal with dates, and proceed on the evidence you have. A documented refusal to re-inspect after a material change in the condition of the property is a fact worth having in the file, whatever happens next.
Does a reconciliation replace a formal supplement?: No. They do different jobs: a reconciliation argues about the current estimate, a supplement presents additional loss or costs. The reconciliation often produces the evidence a supplement then relies on.

The blank template

Exactly what is in the Word download, so you can see the structure before deciding whether you want it.

Basis and documents relied on

Carrier estimate reconciled: [Date and revision — confirm it is current]

Insured's estimate date: [ ______________________ ]

Price list and effective date: [ ______________________ ]

Measured on site by / date: [ ______________________ ]

[Carrier estimate date and revision; insured's estimate basis; price list and date; measurements and who took them; specialist reports]

Summary of the difference

[Totals and the difference, split by cause]

[Cause | Lines affected | Amount]
[Scope omitted | | ]
[Quantity difference | | ]
[Unit price difference | | ]
[Method or specification difference | | ]

Line-by-line reconciliation

[Per line: carrier ref, description, carrier qty/price, insured qty/price, difference, reason]

[Ref | Description | Carrier qty × price | Insured qty × price | Difference | Reason]

Evidence for each contested line

Line reference: [ ______________________ ]

Evidence type: [Photo / measurement / reading / specification / code provision]

Locator: [Photo number, report page, code section]

[Per contested line: the evidence relied on, identified so the reader can locate it]

Items not in dispute

[Lines agreed; any line where the insured's figure is lower than the carrier's]

What is requested, and by when

[What is requested; the date; what follows if no response]

Download this template

Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.

Download .docx Try this template in Professional Drafter

Sources

Related templates

Supplemental Claim Request Template & Example

A supplemental claim request with the distinction that decides the deadline: supplement, reopened claim or new claim. Template, worked example and free Word download.

Appraisal Demand Letter Template & Example

A written demand for appraisal under the policy's appraisal clause, with the statutory mechanics, the timetable it starts, and what appraisal cannot decide. Free Word download.

Public Adjuster Contract Template & Example

A public adjuster contract template with the eleven terms the NAIC model act requires, the four it forbids, and a filled-in example. Free Word download, no signup.

This page is a documentation aid, not legal advice and not a coverage opinion. Claim-handling requirements vary by state and by policy wording, and a template cannot tell you what your file requires. The worked example describes a fictional loss.