How to write a total-loss counteroffer

An adjuster reads a lot of letters. Most of them are angry, most argue everything at once, and most get a form reply.

The ones that move a number share a shape: they are specific, they are short, they name what they are relying on, and they concede the parts that are right.

The shape

One paragraph of context. What the report is, what the offer was, and that you are asking for a revised actual cash value. No history of the accident.

Numbered points, strongest first. One per issue. Each says what the report shows, what you would expect instead, and what it rests on.

A short list of what you want. A revised figure, the complete valuation file including the comparable listings and any inspection notes, and a written response to anything they do not accept.

A deadline that is theirs, not yours. If your state fixes a period for a written response, name it.

A signature. Yours. This is your letter.

What to argue

Argue things that are checkable against their own document:

• A comparable outside your state's distance or recency rule.
• A condition deduction with nothing supporting it in the file.
• A deduction the state does not permit, or one over a stated cap.
• Missing sales tax or fees where the state requires them.
• Options on your car that the report's options list does not show.

Each of those is a statement about their file. They can verify it without agreeing with you about anything subjective, which is exactly why they work.

What you are entitled to see

The second item on that list — the complete valuation file — is not a favor you are asking for. In most states it is something the insurer owes you, and in several it must arrive without you asking at all.

This matters for the order you do things in. If you have not seen the comparables the offer was built on, you cannot check them against your state's rule, and a letter written without them is guesswork. Ask for the file first, then write the letter against what it actually says.

State	What the rule says	Citation
Alabama	Yes, and not merely on request: the basis for the settlement must be fully explained to the first-party claimant. Every deduction must additionally be measurable, discernible, itemized and specified as to dollar amount, and elsewhere in the chapter deductions must be documented in the claim file.	Ala. Admin. Code r. 482-1-125-.08(c) checked Sep 5, 2026
Alaska	Yes, and unusually strong: the person adjusting or settling the claim must itemize EACH deduction and explain the basis for each reduction IN WRITING to the claimant. Betterment and similar deductions must additionally be measurable, itemized, carry specific dollar amounts and be documented in the claim file.	3 AAC 26.080(e), (h) checked Sep 5, 2026
Arizona	Yes, and not merely on request: the basis for the settlement must be fully explained to the first-party claimant. R20-6-801 sets no deadline for that explanation and does not expressly require delivery of the valuation report itself.	Ariz. Admin. Code R20-6-801(H)(1)(c) checked Sep 5, 2026
Arkansas	Yes, on two footings. The basis for the settlement must be fully explained to the first-party claimant, and every deduction must be measurable, discernible, itemized and specified as to dollar amount. Separately, the statute requires the payment to be accompanied by an itemized list stating how much of the claim is attributable to the value of the automobile and how much to sales tax.	Ark. Ins. Rule 43 § 10(a)(3); Ark. Code § 23-89-211(a)(2) checked Sep 5, 2026
California	Yes — and not merely on request: the cost of the comparable automobile, once determined, must be fully itemized and explained in writing to the claimant at the time the settlement offer is made. In first-party total losses the insurer must also give written notice that the insured has 35 calendar days after receiving payment/final offer to report that a comparable automobile cannot be purchased for the gross settlement, after which the insurer must reopen the file and either locate a comp, pay the difference for one the insured located (or buy it), or invoke the policy appraisal provision. On request, insurer must identify the salvage buyer when owner retains salvage.	10 CCR § 2695.8(b)(4); § 2695.8(c)(1)-(4); § 2695.8(b)(1)(A) checked Sep 4, 2026
Colorado partly verified	No rule requiring delivery of the valuation report. Regulation 5-2-15 requires the source and methodology to be recorded in the claim file but does not oblige the insurer to hand it to the claimant, and the statute's express disclosure duty concerns towing and storage benefits rather than valuation.	C.R.S. § 10-4-639(2); 3 CCR 702-5-2-15-5.A.2 checked Sep 5, 2026
Connecticut	Yes, automatic and unusually specific. No later than the date it pays the settlement, the insurer must give the claimant a detailed copy of its calculation of the constructive total loss value; a copy of any valuation report from an industry source that is not publicly available; and a written notice that the claimant may dispute the settlement amount by contacting the Insurance Department — that notice in no less than twelve-point type.	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-353(b) checked Sep 6, 2026
Delaware confirmed: no rule	No rule located requiring delivery of the valuation, but failing promptly to provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the policy for a denial or a compromise settlement offer is an enumerated unfair claim settlement practice.	18 Del. C. § 2304(16)(n) checked Sep 6, 2026
Florida	Yes, on request: electronic-database valuation documents or the guidebook identity must be provided to the first-party insured; basis for non-standard settlements and any depreciation deductions must be explained in writing if requested. No statutory deadline	Fla. Stat. § 626.9743(5)(a)2., (5)(c), (6) checked Sep 4, 2026
Georgia partly verified	No explicit rule requiring delivery of the valuation report on request. Denials must be in writing citing the policy provision; insurer must affirm/deny coverage within a reasonable time when the insured asks in writing	Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 120-2-52-.03(7); O.C.G.A. § 33-6-34(7) checked Sep 4, 2026
Hawaii confirmed: no rule	No express duty located to hand the claimant the valuation. What the statute does require is documentation IN THE CLAIM FILE — under the replacement method a description of the replacement vehicle with its VIN and a schedule of options, and under the cash method a record where the insurer departs from its usual valuation source.	HRS § 431:10C-310(1); § 431:10C-311(a)(2) checked Sep 6, 2026
Idaho partly verified	No rule requiring delivery of the valuation, but a real explanation duty: failing promptly to provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for a denial or a compromise settlement offer is an unfair claim settlement practice.	Idaho Code § 41-1329(14) checked Sep 5, 2026
Illinois	Partial duty. Insured must receive the Exhibit A rights notice within 7 days of the total-loss determination. When the dealer-quotation method is used, insurer must furnish dealer names/locations and copies of the quotes. Computerized sources must provide valuation records 'upon request'. Otherwise the regulation requires documentation of how market value was determined to be kept in the claim file; no general deadline to hand the valuation report to the insured. Right of Recourse: if insured cannot buy a comparable vehicle for the settlement amount within 30 days, insurer must reopen the file and locate a vehicle, pay the difference, offer replacement, or go to appraisal.	50 Ill. Adm. Code 919.80(c) (intro); 919.80(c)(2)(D)-(F) checked Sep 4, 2026
Indiana	No duty to hand over the valuation report itself. An insurer must promptly give a reasonable explanation of the basis in the policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denying a claim or for offering a compromise settlement.	IC 27-4-1-4.5(14) checked Sep 13, 2026
Iowa	Yes, and not merely on request: the basis for the settlement must be fully explained to the first-party claimant, and every deduction must be measurable, discernible, itemized and specified as to dollar amount.	Iowa Admin. Code r. 191-15.43(1)(b) checked Sep 5, 2026
Kansas partly verified	Deductions must be measurable, discernible, itemized and specified as to dollar amount, and the insurer must hold sufficient documentation in the claim file showing how the settlement was obtained. No rule was located obliging the insurer to hand the valuation to the claimant.	K.A.R. 40-1-34 (deduction and documentation provisions) checked Sep 5, 2026
Kentucky confirmed: no rule	No rule located requiring delivery of the valuation or an itemized explanation of the total-loss figure.	806 KAR 12:095 § 7 (no valuation-disclosure duty located) checked Sep 5, 2026
Louisiana partly verified	No express rule requiring delivery of the valuation. The statute's practical substitute is the insured's stated right to present an independent valuation where they dispute the insurer's, which presupposes knowing what the insurer's rested on.	La. R.S. 22:1892(A)(5) (no valuation-disclosure duty located) checked Sep 5, 2026
Maine confirmed: no rule	No rule located requiring delivery of the valuation or an itemized explanation. § 2436-A imposes no separate duty to explain a denial.	24-A M.R.S. § 2436-A (no explanation duty located) checked Sep 5, 2026
Maryland	Yes, and automatic. The settlement offer itself must contain a detailed explanation of the insurer's calculation of total loss value including the value added by options, a list of all deductions, and notice that the claimant may reject the offer in writing and make a counteroffer. On request, supporting documentation must follow within 7 business days.	COMAR 31.15.12.05A(2)(c), A(2)(d), A(3); .05B checked Sep 5, 2026
Massachusetts partly verified	No duty to hand over the actual-cash-value valuation. There IS a specific disclosure duty, but it is confined to salvage: the appraiser must supply the names and addresses of potential salvage buyers, the amount of each salvage estimate used in computing salvage value, and the expiration dates of any offers.	211 CMR 133.05(2) checked Sep 5, 2026
Michigan partly verified	No specific duty to furnish the valuation report. Closest statutory hooks: insurer must specify in writing within 30 days what constitutes satisfactory proof of loss (MCL 500.2006(3)); failing to promptly give a reasonable explanation of the basis for a denial or compromise offer is an unfair practice (MCL 500.2026(1)(n)).	MCL 500.2026(1)(n); MCL 500.2006(3) checked Sep 6, 2026
Minnesota confirmed: no rule	No rule located requiring delivery of the valuation or an itemized explanation of a total-loss figure.	Minn. Stat. § 72A.201 subd. 6 (silent as to disclosure of the valuation) checked Sep 5, 2026
Mississippi confirmed: no rule	No rule located requiring delivery of the valuation or an itemized explanation of a total-loss figure.	Miss. Code § 83-11-551 (no disclosure duty located) checked Sep 5, 2026
Missouri partly verified	No rule requiring delivery of the valuation or an itemized explanation of the total-loss figure. What is required is that the information behind any betterment or depreciation reduction be contained in the claim file and itemized — a record-keeping duty, not a disclosure duty.	20 CSR 100-1.050(2)(E); 20 CSR 100-1.050 (silent as to delivery) checked Sep 5, 2026
Montana confirmed: no rule	No rule located requiring delivery of the valuation, but failing promptly to provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the policy for a denial or a compromise settlement offer is an unfair claim settlement practice.	MCA § 33-18-201(14) checked Sep 5, 2026
Nebraska partly verified	No duty to hand over a TOTAL-LOSS valuation. Nebraska requires a copy of the written estimate only where a NON-total loss is settled on one. For a total loss the only related duty is that deductions be itemized and specified as to dollar amount.	210 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 60, § 009.04, § 009.05 checked Sep 5, 2026
Nevada	Yes, without a request: the basis for the settlement must be documented in the claim file and fully disclosed to the claimant in writing. A reduction for betterment or depreciation must be supported in the file, disclosed in writing and itemized by amount.	NAC 686A.680(2), (7); NRS 686A.310(1)(n) checked Sep 13, 2026
New Hampshire	Yes, and automatic: in conjunction with a total loss settlement offer the insurer must provide the insured or claimant a report which explains the basis for the valuation underlying the offer. Adjustments must be tied to the loss vehicle's own condition, mileage, accessories and options.	N.H. Admin. Code § Ins 1002.15(d) checked Sep 5, 2026
New Jersey	Yes, and automatic rather than on request: written, itemized valuations showing all options and deductions must be in the claim file AND presented to the insured no later than the date of payment. Where the insurer falls back to the best-available-method route it must additionally explain in writing how the offer was calculated.	N.J.A.C. 11:3-10.4(a), (a)4 checked Sep 5, 2026
New Mexico partly verified	No rule requiring delivery of the valuation, but a real explanation duty: failing promptly to provide an insured a reasonable explanation of the basis relied on in the policy is an unfair claims practice.	NMSA § 59A-16-20(N) checked Sep 5, 2026
New York	Yes — automatic for manual-based valuations: insurer must give the insured, no later than the date of payment, a detailed copy of its total-loss calculation including valuation of options not in the base price; 'best available method' offers must be explained to the insured; if any element is unresolved 30 calendar days after notice, a written explanation of the specific reasons for delay is due and must be updated every 30 days; if salvage value is deducted, insurer must on request name a licensed salvage dealer/dismantler who will buy the salvage for the deducted amount with no added charges. Every delay/rejection letter must carry the prescribed DFS complaint statement.	11 NYCRR § 216.7(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(v), (c)(6), (d)(2), (d)(3) checked Sep 4, 2026
North Carolina	Yes. On request, the total-loss payment must be accompanied by a written statement listing estimates, evaluations, deductions and the source of the values; documentation supporting any deviation from the rule must be shared with the claimant. No day-count deadline stated.	11 NCAC 04 .0418(i), (h) checked Sep 4, 2026
North Dakota confirmed: no rule	No rule located requiring delivery of the valuation. Notably, § 26.1-04-03(9) contains no express duty to explain the basis of a denial or a compromise offer — a duty most states in this ledger do have.	N.D.C.C. § 26.1-04-03(9) (no explanation or disclosure duty located) checked Sep 5, 2026
Ohio	Yes — insurer must keep in the claim file the documentation used to determine the total loss and provide it to the first-party claimant upon request; if an electronic database is used, the pertinent valuation documents must be provided on request, and if a guidebook is used it must be identified on request. Insurer must also notify the first-party claimant of any right to renegotiate if a comparable vehicle is not available for purchase within 35 days of receiving the settlement, and must give written notice of the sales-tax reimbursement right with the settlement check. No response deadline is stated for the on-request disclosure.	Ohio Adm. Code 3901-1-54(H)(7)(f), (H)(7)(d)(i)-(ii), (H)(7)(g) checked Sep 23, 2026
Oklahoma	Yes, without a request: the basis for a total-loss settlement must be fully explained to the first-party claimant. A reduction for betterment or depreciation must be supported in the claim file and itemized by dollar amount, and an insurer that prepares a repair estimate must give the claimant a copy.	36 O.S. § 1250.8(B), (F), (G) checked Sep 13, 2026
Oregon	Yes, and automatic: the insurer must furnish the insured copies of the information it used to determine the amount of the cash settlement. No request is required and no exception is stated.	OAR 836-080-0240(3) checked Sep 5, 2026
Pennsylvania	Yes, automatic (not merely on request): the appraiser must send the consumer a copy of the total loss evaluation report within 5 working days after the appraisal is completed; if a settlement offer precedes the report, the consumer must be told its contents and of the right to a copy within 5 days. The report must list names/addresses of persons quoted, dates, and whether a similar vehicle was available; the appraiser's file must show the method used.	31 Pa. Code § 62.3(e)(5)-(7) checked Sep 4, 2026
Rhode Island confirmed: no rule	No rule located requiring delivery of the valuation, but strong itemization duties: adjustments and prior damage deductions must be itemized, fair and reasonable, and any deduction or betterment from fair market value including salvage must be measurable, discernible, itemized and specified as to dollar amount.	R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-9.1-4(29)(iv); 230-RICR-20-40-2.8(A)(5)(b) checked Sep 5, 2026
South Carolina confirmed: no rule	No rule located requiring delivery of the valuation or an itemized explanation. Notably, § 38-59-20 contains no item requiring a reasonable explanation of the basis for a denial or a compromise offer — a duty that most states in this ledger do have.	S.C. Code § 38-59-20 (no explanation or disclosure duty located) checked Sep 5, 2026
South Dakota	No duty to hand over the valuation report itself. When an insurer denies a claim or offers a compromise settlement, it must promptly give a reasonable and accurate explanation of the basis for doing so.	SDCL 58-12-34(12); SDCL 58-33-67(3) checked Sep 13, 2026
Tennessee partly verified	No rule requiring delivery of the valuation report or an itemized explanation to the claimant. Tennessee requires deductions to be documented in the CLAIM FILE, which is a record-keeping duty rather than a disclosure duty.	Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-01-05-.09 (silent on delivery); .09(1)(c), (9)(b) (claim-file documentation) checked Sep 5, 2026
Texas	Insurer must promptly give a reasonable explanation of the basis for a denial or compromise offer; no specific valuation-report delivery rule or deadline	Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(3); 28 Tex. Admin. Code § 21.203(9) checked Sep 4, 2026
Utah partly verified	No rule requiring delivery of the valuation or an itemized explanation. The one disclosure duty located is narrow and concerns salvage: the insurer must disclose salvage dealer information if requested.	Utah Admin. Code R590-190-12(6) checked Sep 5, 2026
Vermont	Yes, automatic and specific. No later than the date it makes a settlement offer the insurer must provide the claimant a detailed copy of its calculation of the vehicle's total loss value, a copy of any valuation report from an automobile valuation source that is NOT publicly available, and a written notice disclosing that the claimant may dispute it. Separately, all claim payments must include an appropriate explanation of the basis of the payment.	Vt. Reg. I-79-2 § 8(B)(2)(g); § 7(B) checked Sep 5, 2026
Virginia	Yes, on request, and squarely: a total loss valuation shall be provided to the claimant upon request. Separately, all deductions must be itemized and specified as to dollar amount.	14 VAC 5-400-80(D), (E) checked Sep 5, 2026
Washington	Yes, on request: the insurer must provide a true and accurate copy of any valuation report as described in WAC 284-30-392. Separately, every addition or deduction from actual cash value must be explained to the claimant and itemized showing specific dollar amounts.	WAC 284-30-391(4)(d), (5)(d) checked Sep 5, 2026
West Virginia	Yes, and automatic: on a cash settlement the insurer must provide a reasonable written explanation to the concerned parties specifying the dollar amount of the base figure and identifying the actual source. Deductions must additionally be measurable, discernible, itemized, specified as to dollar amount, and detailed in the claim file.	W. Va. Code R. § 114-14-7.4.a.3; § 114-14-7.3.f checked Sep 5, 2026
Wisconsin partly verified	No rule requiring delivery of the valuation or an itemized explanation of a total-loss figure. Ins 6.11(3)(a) does treat failure to give a reasonable explanation for a denial or compromise offer as an unfair practice, but that is a general duty rather than a valuation-disclosure rule.	Wis. Admin. Code Ins 6.11(3)(a) (no valuation-disclosure duty) checked Sep 5, 2026
Wyoming confirmed: no rule	No rule located requiring delivery of the valuation, but failing promptly to provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the policy for a denial or a compromise settlement offer is an enumerated unfair claims settlement practice.	Wyo. Stat. § 26-13-124(a)(xiv) checked Sep 13, 2026

Where your state's entry says the duty is automatic, an offer that arrived without the calculation is itself a point worth making in the letter. Where it says the duty runs only on request, make the request in writing and date it.

What not to argue

Not what the car meant to you. It is true and it is irrelevant to actual cash value.

Not a number you cannot show your working for. "This car is worth $19,000" invites "on what basis". "Removing the comparable that fails your 50-mile rule moves the average to $16,960" does not.

Not everything. This is the one most people get wrong. A letter that disputes the mileage adjustment, the base method, the comparables, the condition grade and the tax reads as a person who will dispute anything. A letter that says these three items are wrong, and the mileage adjustment looks right to me reads as someone who checked.

Conceding a correct adjustment costs you nothing and buys the rest of the letter credibility.

Show the arithmetic

The single most effective thing you can do is make the adjuster's revision arithmetic rather than judgment. A point that ends in a number they can check is much harder to set aside than one that ends in an adjective.

Suppose the report averages four comparables — $16,200, $16,450, $17,100 and $14,400 — for an indicated value of $16,037. One of them, the $14,400, sits outside the distance your state's rule allows.

You do not need to argue that $14,400 is a bad comparable. You need to say that it does not qualify, and then show what the report's own method produces without it: the remaining three average $16,583. That is a $546 movement, derived entirely from their document and their method.

Written that way, the point has no opinion in it. The adjuster can agree or disagree about whether the comparable qualifies, but they cannot disagree about what the average becomes if it does not. Which rule applies to you is in comparable vehicles: what insurers may and may not use.

Do the same for every point you can. Two arithmetic points are worth more than five assertions.

Tone

Write it the way you would write to a bank about a billing error. No adjectives about the insurer, no accusations of bad faith, no threats. If you have grounds for a regulator complaint, the letter does not need to say so — filing one later is more effective than promising one now.

What happens next

Expect one of three replies: a revised offer, a request for more information, or a restatement of the original position. The third is common and is not the end. It gives you something you did not have — their reasoning in writing — which is what a regulator complaint or an appraisal-clause demand is built on.

Say which rule you are relying on, and which you are not

The strongest counteroffers are explicit about the footing each point stands on, because that is what stops an adjuster dismissing the whole letter on the weakest item in it.

Three footings show up, and they are worth naming differently. A point backed by a state rule can quote the rule and ask for compliance. A point in a state that has been read and confirmed to have no rule on the subject rests on the policy's actual-cash-value promise instead, and saying so openly is stronger than implying a rule exists — an adjuster who knows there is no rule and reads you asserting one stops trusting the rest of the letter. And a point where the sources do not settle the question is worth making only if the arithmetic carries it on its own.

Sorting your points that way costs nothing and changes how the letter reads. It also tells you what to lead with: rule-backed items first, because they are the ones an adjuster can approve without asking anyone.

Ask for what you are owed, not for a round number

One habit undermines otherwise good letters. Having built a careful case for several hundred dollars of specific corrections, people round the total up and ask for a figure that no longer follows from the arithmetic.

An adjuster who can trace your total back through your own list can approve it. One who cannot has to treat the number as an opening position and respond with an opening position of their own, which is how a documented claim turns into a haggle. Ask for the sum of the items you have shown, to the dollar, and let the oddness of the figure make the point that it was calculated rather than chosen.

The clock on their reply

Most states fix how long an insurer may take to respond, and the periods are shorter than people assume. Put the date on your calendar rather than waiting to notice it has passed — a deadline you can name in a follow-up is worth considerably more than a general complaint about delay.

Give them a date rather than a vague "promptly". The date to use is the one your state's own rule implies, and the prompt-payment deadlines guide lists every state's periods with the day type each is counted in.

Two cautions on reading that table. Several of these clocks run in business or working days rather than calendar days, so count them properly before asserting one has passed. And the clock generally starts from a documented event — proof of loss, or notice of the claim — not from the day you last spoke to someone. Getting either wrong turns a strong point into one the insurer can correct, so check the start date and the day type before you put the deadline in writing.