Reading a Mitchell WorkCenter total-loss report

The first thing to establish about a Mitchell valuation is which kind you were sent. Unlike its competitors, Mitchell does not produce one report — it produces several, they are built in different ways, and the difference matters more than anything else on the page.

The section names and quoted definitions below come from Mitchell's own help documentation for the people who produce these reports.

Which report did you get?

Mitchell's documentation lists the options an adjuster chooses between. The ones you are most likely to see:

• WorkCenter Total Loss Comparable Vehicle Report — described as a "Fully Automated Vehicle Valuation Report where vehicle coverage exists." This is the default: software finds the comparables.
• Market Survey Report — a "Semi-Automated Vehicle Valuation Report" using "comparable vehicles manually searched and selected by Mitchell's Total Loss Service Center." A person chose them.
• Dealer Quote — a "Manual Vehicle Valuation Report utilizing Dealer Quotes", completed "when comparable vehicles cannot be located."
• NADA/JDPA Report — built on J.D. Power guide data rather than on comparables at all.
• Dual Source Reports — combinations of the above.

Find the report type before you read anything else. An argument about comparable selection is meaningless against a NADA/JDPA report, which does not use them, and a dealer-quote report is telling you plainly that comparables could not be found — which is itself worth knowing, because several states treat dealer quotes as a fallback that only becomes available once comparables have been exhausted.

State	What the rule says	Citation
Alabama	Two methods where the policy settles on actual cash value or replacement with like kind and quality. The insurer may offer a replacement automobile at least comparable to the insured vehicle, or a cash settlement based on the actual cost to purchase a comparable automobile including all applicable taxes, license fees and other fees incident to transfer of ownership. Any deviation must be supported and the basis fully explained.	Ala. Admin. Code r. 482-1-125-.08(a), (b) checked Sep 5, 2026
Alaska	Two methods where the coverage settles on actual cash value or replacement with like kind and quality: offer a comparable and available replacement motor vehicle, or make a cash settlement based on the actual cost to purchase a comparable motor vehicle. Both must include all applicable taxes, license fees, destination or delivery charges and other fees incident to transfer of ownership — on the replacement route, at no cost to the claimant beyond the deductible.	3 AAC 26.080(a)(1) checked Sep 5, 2026
Arizona	Two permitted methods where the policy settles on actual cash value or replacement with like kind and quality: the insurer may offer a specific comparable replacement automobile, or a cash settlement based on the actual cost to purchase a comparable automobile. Deviations from either method must be supported by documentation giving particulars of the vehicle's condition.	Ariz. Admin. Code R20-6-801(H)(1)(a)-(b) checked Sep 5, 2026
Arkansas	Two methods. The insurer may offer a specific comparable replacement automobile available to the insured, with all applicable taxes and fees paid at no cost beyond the deductible; or a cash settlement based on the actual cost to purchase a comparable automobile, including all applicable taxes, license fees and other fees ACTUALLY INCURRED incident to transfer of ownership.	Ark. Ins. Rule 43 § 10(a)(1), (a)(2) checked Sep 5, 2026
California	Insurer may elect a cash settlement based on the actual cost of a 'comparable automobile' less deductible, or (first party) offer a specified comparable replacement automobile with all taxes and fees paid. Cost of a comparable automobile must be determined by hierarchy: (A) average of two or more comparable automobiles available in the local market area within the last 90 days; (B) if none, average of two or more quotations from licensed dealers in the local market area; (C) a computerized valuation service producing statistically valid fair market values within the local market area; (D) otherwise supported by documentation and fully explained. Insurer may use asking price or actual sale price of comps.	10 CCR § 2695.8(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4)(A)-(D), (b)(5) checked Sep 4, 2026
Colorado	Colorado regulates the process rather than the arithmetic. The insurer must establish a fair and consistent method for determining total loss, maintain written procedures used consistently, and record in the claim file the credible source used by vendor name, the methodology, and consideration of the vehicle's unique characteristics.	C.R.S. § 10-4-639(3); 3 CCR 702-5-2-15-5.A.1, .A.2 checked Sep 5, 2026
Connecticut	A two-source average, fixed by statute. Where a vehicle is declared a constructive total loss the insurer must use AT LEAST the average of the retail values given by the National Automobile Dealers Association used car guide (or another publicly available industry source) and one other automobile industry source. The Insurance Department has approved Red Book and Autotrak as the second source and requires each insurer to designate one in writing.	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-353(a); CID Bulletin IC-9 checked Sep 6, 2026
Delaware confirmed: no rule	None located. Delaware has no total-loss valuation regulation; its claims standards run through the unfair claim settlement practices provisions rather than through a valuation rule.	18 Del. C. § 2304(16); 18 DE Admin. Code § 902 (no valuation methodology located) checked Sep 5, 2026
Florida	Cash settlement based on actual cost to purchase a comparable vehicle (including sales tax per (9)), derived from: 2+ local comps within 90 days, a recognized industry source (electronic database or public guidebook), or 2+ licensed-dealer quotes; or replacement vehicle. Insurer chooses method	Fla. Stat. § 626.9743(5)(a)1.-3., (5)(b) checked Sep 4, 2026
Georgia	Insurer elects cash-equivalent settlement or replacement vehicle. Cash method: actual cost (less deductible) to purchase a comparable vehicle (same manufacturer, same model year, similar body style/options/mileage) incl. taxes and fees, from: 2+ local comps, 2+ proximate-area comps, 2+ licensed-dealer quotes, or a statistically valid FMV source	Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 120-2-52-.06(a)1.-4., (b) checked Sep 4, 2026
Hawaii	Two statutory methods, and the insurer must follow one of them: the replacement method at § 431:10C-310, or the cash settlement method at § 431:10C-311. On a cash settlement the figure must be based on the retail value of the vehicle as determined from a source or sources reflective of market value.	HRS § 431:10C-309; § 431:10C-311(a)(1) checked Sep 6, 2026
Idaho confirmed: no rule	None located. Idaho has no total-loss valuation regulation for automobile insurance; its claims standards run through the unfair claim settlement practices statute rather than through a valuation rule.	Idaho Code § 41-1329 (unfair claim settlement practices; no valuation methodology) checked Sep 5, 2026
Illinois	Insurer may replace the vehicle or pay cash. Cash settlement must be based on retail 'market value' from one of: (A) a published guidebook (updated at least every 2 months, last 5 model years); (B) a computerized database (>=85% of makes/models, last 15 model years, data from the area where the vehicle was principally garaged, mileage/condition allowances); (C) a computerized service listing >=2 comparable vehicles available or sold by licensed Illinois dealers; or (D) if not quoted in any source, >=2 written dealer quotations. Insurer chooses the method.	50 Ill. Adm. Code 919.80(c)(2)(A)-(D) checked Sep 4, 2026
Indiana confirmed: no rule	None. Indiana has no total-loss valuation rule: no required method, valuation source or comparable-vehicle standard for settling a total loss.	IC 27-4-1-4.5; IC 27-4-1.5; 760 IAC 1 (no valuation provision) checked Sep 13, 2026
Iowa	Four permitted routes to a cash settlement: the cost of two or more comparable automobiles in the local market area available within 90 days; comparables in proximate areas and the closest major metropolitan areas within 90 days where none is available locally; dealer quotations; or a statistically valid source considering values in the local market area and covering at least 85 percent of all makes and models for the last 15 model years.	Iowa Admin. Code r. 191-15.43(1)(a)(2) checked Sep 5, 2026
Kansas	The insurer may pay a cash settlement based on the actual cost, less any deductible, to purchase a comparable automobile including all applicable taxes, license fees and other fees incident to transfer of ownership. Cost may be determined from comparables in the local market area, two or more written dealer quotations from licensed local-market dealers, or a statistically valid valuation source producing fair market values from current local market data and covering at least 85 percent of makes and models for the last 15 model years.	K.A.R. 40-1-34 (automobile total loss provisions) checked Sep 5, 2026
Kentucky	Three permitted methods for determining actual cash value: the cost of a comparable motor vehicle in the local market area if one is available; two or more quotations obtained by the insurer from two or more qualified and licensed dealers; or a nationally-recognized automobile evaluation publication meeting stated criteria, including consideration of the local market and coverage of at least 85 percent of all makes and models for the last eight model years.	806 KAR 12:095 § 7(1)(b) checked Sep 5, 2026
Louisiana	Where the policy settles a first-party motor vehicle total loss on actual cash value or replacement with like kind and quality and the insurer elects a cash settlement, the cost of a comparable vehicle must be derived from a fair market value survey conducted using qualified retail automobile dealers in the local market area. If there are no dealers in the local market area, the nearest reasonable market may be used. Industry-recognized databases and qualified expert valuations are also permitted, and the insured may present an independent valuation if they dispute the figure.	La. R.S. 22:1892(A)(5) checked Sep 5, 2026
Maine confirmed: no rule	No prescriptive valuation methodology located. Maine's insurance code sets what must be covered and when payment is due rather than how actual cash value is to be calculated.	24-A M.R.S. §§ 2436, 2436-A, 2907 (no valuation methodology) checked Sep 5, 2026
Maryland	The minimum cash offer must be the total of a value plus taxes and fees. The value comes either from a nationally recognized valuation manual or a computerized database producing statistically valid fair market values for a substantially similar vehicle, or from a dealer quotation for a substantially similar vehicle obtained from a qualified dealer at a location reasonably convenient to the claimant.	COMAR 31.15.12.04A, B checked Sep 5, 2026
Massachusetts	Four factors must be considered in determining actual cash value: the retail book value for a vehicle of like kind and quality but for the damage; the price paid plus prior improvements less appropriate depreciation; the decrease in value from prior unrelated damage detected by the appraiser; and the actual cost of purchasing an available vehicle of like kind and quality. The regulation requires all four to be considered but does not rank them or prescribe how to weight them.	211 CMR 133.05(1)(a)-(d) checked Sep 5, 2026
Michigan partly verified	No Michigan statute or administrative rule prescribes a total-loss valuation method (no comps/guidebook/dealer-quote requirement). Valuation is governed by the policy's 'actual cash value' / limit-of-liability language and general unfair-trade-practice standards (MCL 500.2026(1)(f), (n)).	None found; general standard MCL 500.2026(1)(f) checked Sep 6, 2026
Minnesota	Two permitted methods. Either offer a comparable and available replacement automobile, with all applicable taxes, license fees at least pro rata for the unexpired term of the replaced vehicle's license, and other transfer fees; or pay the cost of a comparable automobile, adjusted for mileage, condition and options, in the insured's local market area.	Minn. Stat. § 72A.201 subd. 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b) checked Sep 5, 2026
Mississippi confirmed: no rule	None located. Mississippi has no total-loss valuation regulation; its insurance code addresses payees, title handling and salvage certificates rather than how actual cash value is determined.	Miss. Code § 83-11-551 (no valuation methodology) checked Sep 5, 2026
Missouri	Missouri prescribes no total-loss valuation methodology. The one settlement constraint is a floor: the insurer may not use as the basis for a cash settlement an amount less than it would pay if repairs were made — except in total loss situations, or where the insured agrees.	20 CSR 100-1.050(2)(G) checked Sep 5, 2026
Montana	Montana voids book-value clauses by statute. A motor vehicle insurance policy issued to a Montana resident that provides for total-loss reimbursement based on a 'book' value rather than actual replacement value is VOID as to that provision, and reimbursement must be made for actual replacement value.	MCA § 33-23-202 checked Sep 5, 2026
Nebraska	None specific to total losses. 210 NAC 60 § 009 sets standards for automobile settlements but prescribes no total-loss valuation method — no comparable-vehicle standard, no valuation source requirement and no tax or fee rule. What it does require is that every deduction be measurable, discernable, itemized and specified as to dollar amount.	210 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 60, § 009.05 checked Sep 5, 2026
Nevada	An insurer settling an automobile total loss must either offer a specific comparable replacement automobile with taxes and transfer fees paid, or make a cash settlement based on the cost of buying a comparable automobile, including all applicable taxes, license fees and transfer fees. The cash figure must come from one of three methods, comparable automobiles, licensed-dealer quotations or a statistically valid valuation source, and cannot be less than the lowest valuation obtained with one of them. A departure from that valuation must be supported by documents giving particulars of the automobile's condition, and deductions, including for salvage, must be measurable, discernible, itemized and specified as to amount.	NAC 686A.680(1)(a), (1)(b), (2) checked Sep 13, 2026
New Hampshire	Two permitted routes: a fair market value derived from a methodology the Department accepts as statistically valid, or documented sales costs of no fewer than 2 motor vehicles of the same make, model and year that sold within the previous 90 days within the local market area. Where exact matches are unavailable, 2 vehicles of like kind and quality on the same terms.	N.H. Admin. Code § Ins 1002.15(a)(1), (a)(2) checked Sep 5, 2026
New Jersey	Four ranked methods, and New Jersey is the only state in the ledger built on valuation MANUALS rather than comparable listings. In order: the average of the retail values in two Commissioner-approved manuals current for the date of loss; a dealer quotation for a substantially similar vehicle within 25 miles; fair market value from a Commissioner-approved database giving primary consideration to the local market area; or, only if none of those is possible, the best available method with a full written explanation of how the offer was calculated. Every offer is made 'plus applicable sales tax'.	N.J.A.C. 11:3-10.4(a)1-4 checked Sep 5, 2026
New Mexico confirmed: no rule	None located. New Mexico has no total-loss valuation regulation for automobile insurance; its claims standards run through the Unfair Insurance Practices Act rather than through a valuation rule.	NMSA § 59A-16-20 (unfair claims practices; no valuation methodology) checked Sep 5, 2026
New York	Insurer elects cash settlement or replacement with an immediately available, substantially similar vehicle furnished and paid for by the insurer. If cash, the MINIMUM offer (subject to applicable deductions) must be one of: (i) average of retail values for a substantially similar vehicle in two DFS-approved valuation manuals current at date of loss (Redbook and N.A.D.A. Official Used Car Guide named), with option values considered and documented dealer-prep deduction capped at $100; (ii) a quotation for a substantially similar vehicle from a qualified dealer within 25 miles of principal garagement, which must remain available for 3 calendar days after certified-mail/recorded notice; (iii) a DFS-approved computerized database producing statistically valid local-market values (85% of makes/models for 15 model years, dealer inventory sold within 90 days prior to loss); (iv) for vehicles bought from a dealer within 180 days before loss, offer may be capped at purchase price plus substantiated improvements less deductible; (v) otherwise the best available method, explained to the insured. Current-model-year vehicles: reasonable purchase price of a new identical vehicle less deductible and a per-mile depreciation schedule ($.15–$.53/mile by price band) unless another method yields more. If the insurer's research shows manual values cannot buy a substantially similar vehicle, the offer must be the researched amount.	11 NYCRR § 216.7(c)(1)(i)-(v), (c)(2), (c)(3) (Regulation 64) checked Sep 4, 2026
North Carolina	Cash settlement at pre-accident ACV. If insurer and claimant disagree, offer must be based on (1) published regional average values (NADA/KBB-type guides) AND (2) retail cost of 2+ substantially similar vehicles in the local market area available within 90 days of the accident; if none located, quotes from 2+ licensed dealers in the local market area. Insurer may alternatively elect to replace with a substantially similar vehicle.	11 NCAC 04 .0418(c), (d), (m) checked Sep 4, 2026
North Dakota confirmed: no rule	None located. North Dakota's insurance statute sets conduct standards rather than a valuation methodology, and no automobile total-loss regulation was located in the Insurance Commissioner's administrative code.	N.D.C.C. § 26.1-04-03(9) (no valuation methodology) checked Sep 5, 2026
Ohio	Cash offer must be based on the actual cost to purchase a comparable automobile, less policy deductible and any permitted betterment deduction. Value may be derived, in order of preference, from: (a) average of >=2 comparable autos in the local market area available within the last 90 days; (b) average of >=2 comps in proximate areas including the closest in-state or out-of-state major metro areas; (c) average of >=2 quotations from licensed dealers in the local market area; or (d) a generally recognized used-vehicle industry source — an electronic database (valuation documents provided to claimant on request) or a publicly available guidebook (identified on request, with documented adjustments for condition, mileage and major options). Any (d) method must be used consistently over time. Insurer may instead offer a replacement vehicle meeting (H)(6).	Ohio Adm. Code 3901-1-54(H)(7)(a)-(e) checked Sep 23, 2026
Oklahoma	An insurer settling a first-party total loss on an actual cash value or like-kind basis must either offer a specific comparable replacement vehicle with all taxes and transfer fees paid, or pay a cash settlement based on the actual cost to purchase a comparable vehicle, including taxes, license fees and other transfer fees. That cost may be set by a comparable vehicle in the local market area available within the prior 90 days, by one of two or more quotations from qualified dealers in the local market area when no comparable is available there, or by the NADA Official Used Car Guide or another nationally recognized published guidebook. A settlement that deviates from those methods must be supported by documentation of the vehicle's condition, and deductions, including for salvage, must be measurable, discernible, itemized and specified as to dollar amount.	36 O.S. § 1250.8(A)(1), (A)(2), (B) checked Sep 13, 2026
Oregon	Three permitted routes to actual cash value: a computerized database producing statistically valid market values; the actual cost of a comparable replacement vehicle; or an alternative method supported by documentation in the claim file. Whichever is used, the insurer must pay all applicable taxes, license fees and other transfer fees at no cost to the insured beyond the deductible.	OAR 836-080-0240(3) checked Sep 5, 2026
Pennsylvania	'Replacement value' determined by one of three methods: (i) guide source method — average of two retail book values from Commissioner-approved guide sources, adjusted for equipment and mileage, less pre-existing damage; (ii) actual cost method — actual purchase cost of an available vehicle of like kind and quality in similar or better condition, location specified in writing; (iii) dealer quotation method — average of at least two dealer/expert quotations. If vehicle is listed in >=2 approved guides, use (i) or (ii); if owner shows the actual-cost comp is not of like kind and quality, both must be computed and the higher offered. If not listed in 2 guides (antique, discontinued, unique), use (ii) or (iii), and if (iii) is used both are computed and the higher offered. Valuation must be prepared by a licensed appraiser.	31 Pa. Code § 62.3(e)(1)-(3) checked Sep 4, 2026
Rhode Island	A cash settlement must be based on the fair market value of the vehicle less any policy deductible, INCLUDING all applicable taxes, title, registration and other fees incident to transfer of ownership of a comparable automobile. Fair market value means the retail value set out in a current edition of a nationally recognized compilation of retail values commonly used by the automotive industry. Deductions for reconditioning or dealer preparation are prohibited outright.	230-RICR-20-40-2.8(A)(2), (A)(5)(a) checked Sep 5, 2026
South Carolina confirmed: no rule	None located. South Carolina has no state-specific total-loss valuation regulation; the operative standards run through the general unfair claim practices statute rather than through a valuation rule.	S.C. Code § 38-59-20 (general unfair claim practices; no valuation methodology) checked Sep 5, 2026
South Dakota confirmed: no rule	None. South Dakota has no total-loss valuation rule: no required method, valuation source or comparable-vehicle standard for settling a total loss.	SDCL 58-12-31 to 58-12-37; SDCL 58-33-67; ARSD article 20:06 (no valuation provision) checked Sep 13, 2026
Tennessee	Where the policy settles on actual cash value or replacement with like kind and quality, the insurer may offer a comparable replacement automobile with all applicable taxes, license fees and transfer fees paid, or a cash settlement based on the cost of two or more comparable automobiles. Deductions must be as specific as reasonably possible and documented in the claim file.	Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-01-05-.09(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c) checked Sep 5, 2026
Texas partly verified	No Texas statute or rule prescribes total-loss valuation methods; settlement is ACV under the policy, subject to the general duty to attempt a prompt, fair and equitable settlement	Tex. Ins. Code § 541.060(a)(2)(A); 28 Tex. Admin. Code § 21.203(4) checked Sep 4, 2026
Utah	None. Utah prescribes no total-loss valuation methodology. The only settlement constraint is a floor: an insurer may not settle for less than it would be charged if repairs were made, unless the claimant agrees or the policy provides otherwise.	Utah Admin. Code R590-190-12(1) checked Sep 5, 2026
Vermont	Two methods, and the cash route carries a statutory FLOOR. A replacement vehicle may be offered with all applicable taxes, registration fees and other transfer fees paid at no cost beyond the deductible. Or a cash settlement based on actual cost to cover purchase of a comparable vehicle including all applicable taxes, registration fees and transfer fees — and that cost 'shall be no less than the average of' the NADA Used Car Guide retail value in effect at the time of loss AND the retail value of a comparable vehicle furnished by a third-party total-loss valuation vendor.	Vt. Reg. I-79-2 § 8(B)(1), (B)(2) checked Sep 5, 2026
Virginia	Virginia prescribes no valuation methodology. 14 VAC 5-400-80 regulates settlement conduct — the valuation must be handed over on request and deductions must be itemized — but sets out no method for arriving at actual cash value.	14 VAC 5-400-80(D), (E) checked Sep 5, 2026
Washington	Two methods. Either the actual cash value of a comparable motor vehicle based on current data obtained in the area where the loss vehicle is principally garaged, or quotations from two or more licensed dealers within a reasonable distance of that area. Every offer must rest on itemized and verifiable dollar amounts.	WAC 284-30-391(2)(b)(i)-(ii) checked Sep 5, 2026
West Virginia	The insurer must use one of the prescribed methods: pay the reasonable purchase price with an allowance for depreciation, or furnish a substantially similar replacement vehicle. Where a cash settlement is made the company must give a reasonable written explanation to the concerned parties specifying the dollar amount of the base figure and identifying the actual source, and add 5 percent for excise tax.	W. Va. Code R. § 114-14-7.4.c; § 114-14-7.4.a.3 checked Sep 5, 2026
Wisconsin confirmed: no rule	None. Wisconsin prescribes no total-loss valuation methodology. Ins 6.11 is a general claim-settlement-practices rule covering all lines of insurance and contains no automobile valuation standard.	Wis. Admin. Code Ins 6.11 (no automobile valuation standard) checked Sep 5, 2026
Wyoming confirmed: no rule	None located. Wyoming has no total-loss valuation regulation; its claims standards run through the unfair claims settlement practices statute rather than through a valuation rule.	Wyo. Stat. § 26-13-124 (no valuation methodology) checked Sep 5, 2026

The search radius is worth checking

This is the single most useful fact in Mitchell's documentation, and it is stated plainly. Mitchell's database covers "comparable vehicles that are for sale, or have been recently sold, in the local, regional, or national marketplace."

For the Market Survey Report specifically, Mitchell's report-options documentation gives a "Maximum Search Radius - 1500 miles." The Market Survey Specialty Valuation Report goes further: "Nationwide Search from garaging location."

Read that carefully, because it is easy to overstate. It is a maximum — a ceiling on where the search may reach, not a claim about where your comparables actually came from. Most reports will use vehicles far closer.

But it does mean the distance on each comparable is a number you should check rather than assume, and it sits against state rules that are considerably tighter.

What the report contains

Mitchell's documentation names the sections an adjuster completes:

• Admin Information and Vehicle Information
• Vehicle Equipment and Adjustments
• Prior Damage
• Aftermarket Parts, OEM Equipment and Refurbishments
• Valuation Notes
• Settlement Summary

Two of those deserve particular attention.

Prior Damage is its own section, which tells you it is its own decision. If a deduction appears here, someone entered it. Ask what it was based on — an inspection, a history report, or an assumption — and ask for that evidence.

Aftermarket Parts, OEM Equipment and Refurbishments is where money is most often left out rather than taken off. Recent tires, a replaced transmission, a refurbished interior: these are additions, and they only appear if somebody entered them. Nobody will enter them on your behalf.

What Mitchell says about its own data

The documentation states that "the data is current and the results are statistically validated to ensure an accurate valuation."

That is a claim about method, not about your particular car, and it is not a reason to accept the number. Statistical validity across a large dataset is entirely compatible with the wrong trim being selected for your vehicle, or a comparable sitting 400 miles away, or an option going uncredited. Those are input errors, and no amount of validation downstream corrects an input error.

What to check

1. The report type. It determines which arguments are even available.
2. The distance on every comparable, given how wide the permitted search can be.
3. The equipment and refurbishments sections — for what should be there and is not.
4. Prior damage, and what supports it.
5. The Settlement Summary, for whether sales tax and fees appear.

Whether that line should be there at all is a question of state rule rather than of vendor practice; the sales tax, title and fees guide has every state's position.

Where the report and the rule diverge

The gap this guide keeps returning to is worth stating plainly, because it is the single most productive thing to understand about any vendor report: the software is doing its job correctly and may still produce a valuation your state does not permit.

A national valuation database is built to find the closest match to your vehicle anywhere it can. Widening the search improves the match. That is the right instinct for a database and it is exactly the instinct a state radius rule was written to constrain, because a car two hundred miles away may be a better match on trim and mileage while being a worse answer to the only question that matters, which is what it would cost to replace your car where you live.

So a comparable can be simultaneously the best available match and outside the rule. Nobody has behaved improperly and the valuation is still wrong for your claim. That framing is also the most effective one to write in: you are not accusing anyone of anything, you are pointing out that the report was produced to a national standard and your settlement is governed by a state one.

Check the radius your state sets, then check the distance column. If your state sets none, the question becomes whether the comparables are genuinely from your market, which is a judgment rather than a measurement — and one you are better placed to make than a database is.

The report is evidence, not a determination

It helps to be clear about what the document in front of you is. A valuation report is the insurer's evidence for a number it has chosen. It is not a finding by anyone independent, it is not reviewed by the state, and nothing in it binds either side.

That matters because the format encourages the opposite reading. The report arrives typeset, with tables and codes and a vendor's name on it, and it looks like the output of a process that has already adjudicated something. It has not. It is one party's working, and working can be checked.

The practical version of that: every figure in it came from an input, and every input is a thing you can ask about. Which vehicles were selected and why those. What condition grade was assigned to yours and on what evidence. Which adjustments were applied and against what standard. None of those questions challenges the vendor's software, and all of them are answerable by the person who ordered the report.

When the comparables are the argument

If you take one thing from the report, take the comparables list. It is the part most likely to contain an error you can demonstrate, and the part your state is most likely to have a rule about.

Read each listed vehicle against your own: the year, the trim, the mileage, the options and, above all, where it is. Then read your state's row for what it requires of a comparable. Where the state sets a distance, a recency window or a mileage tolerance, a listed vehicle outside it is not a matter of opinion — it is a comparable the rule does not permit, and removing it changes the average the report is built on.

A note on this guide

Everything above is drawn from Mitchell's own published documentation for the adjusters who produce these reports. Nothing here suggests Mitchell's method is improper — a wide permitted search radius is a feature of a national database, not evidence of anything. It is here because your state's rule may be much narrower than what the software is permitted to do, and only one of those two numbers is printed on your report.