Insurance adjusters use comparative negligence to reduce payouts by assigning a percentage of fault to each party involved in an accident. If the injured person is found partially responsible, their compensation is reduced by that percentage. For example, if the claimant is 30% at fault, the payout is reduced by 30%. In some states like Illinois, if the claimant is more than 50% at fault, they receive nothing. Adjusters examine evidence like police reports, photos, and statements to show shared blame. This legal strategy lowers the amount the insurance company has to pay.
What is Comparative Negligence?
Comparative negligence is a legal principle used in civil cases, especially in auto accidents and injury claims, to assign blame between parties. Rather than placing all fault on one person, it divides responsibility based on each party’s actions. This doctrine becomes critical during insurance claims, where adjusters use comparative negligence to reduce financial liability for their companies.
In Illinois, a modified comparative negligence system applies. According to 735 ILCS 5/2-1116, a claimant cannot recover damages if they are found to be more than 50% at fault for an incident. If fault is assigned at 50% or less, the claimant’s compensation is reduced in proportion to their degree of fault. For example, if someone is found 30% responsible, they may only receive 70% of the total damages.
Source: Illinois Compiled Statutes
The Role of Insurance Adjusters
Insurance adjusters are professionals who evaluate claims filed by policyholders. Their goal is to determine the validity of the claim and assess how much compensation is owed. In doing so, they often rely on the comparative negligence framework to reduce the insurer’s payout. Adjusters investigate all aspects of the case, including statements from drivers, police reports, witness accounts, and photos from the scene.
They are trained to look for any behavior by the claimant that could contribute to the accident. Examples include:
- Failing to signal or yield
- Driving above the speed limit
- Distracted driving (e.g., using a phone)
- Ignoring road signs
By documenting such behaviors, adjusters can argue that the claimant was partially at fault and use this as justification to lower the settlement offer.
Techniques Used to Shift Blame
Strategic Documentation of Events
Adjusters may frame their narratives using precise language that suggests shared responsibility. Instead of stating, “The other driver ran the red light,” they might write, “The claimant may not have exercised caution when entering the intersection.” This subtle shift allows them to introduce doubt without making explicit accusations.
Such language serves as a foundation for negotiating lower settlements. Phrases like “possibly distracted,” “may have contributed,” or “appears to be partially responsible” are common in reports. These are not accidental. They are crafted to suggest that the claimant holds some degree of fault.
Use of Policyholder Statements
Adjusters often take recorded statements from the claimant shortly after the incident. These interviews can reveal inconsistencies or admissions that help the adjuster build a case for comparative fault. If the claimant says something like, “I didn’t see the other car coming,” this can be interpreted as inattentiveness, even if they were not technically at fault.
Legal Language and Fault Attribution
The wording used in insurance documents can have significant implications. Adjusters might use phrases aligned with legal definitions of negligence, such as:
- “Failed to exercise reasonable care”
- “Neglected duty of safe operation”
- “Partially contributed to hazardous conditions”
By embedding such terms in their reports, adjusters link their conclusions to legal standards that hold weight in negotiations and court proceedings. The goal is to shape the narrative in a way that makes partial fault seem legally reasonable.
Illinois-Specific Tactics
What is the 51% Rule?
In Illinois, if the adjuster can successfully argue that the claimant was more than 50% at fault, the insurance company is not legally obligated to pay anything. This creates a strong incentive to inflate the claimant’s responsibility in borderline cases.
For example, in a two-car collision at an intersection, even if the insured party failed to yield, the adjuster may highlight that the claimant was speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, or possibly distracted. These claims, even when minor, can be layered to tip the perceived fault above the 50% threshold.
Reference to Case Law
Insurance companies often use past legal cases to support their stance. In Illinois, decisions like Alvis v. Ribar have reinforced the use of comparative fault to determine liability. Adjusters and legal teams may reference such precedents to back their assessment of fault, especially when negotiating or responding to legal challenges.
Case Reference: Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill.2d 1 (1981)
Evidence Evaluation and Fault Allocation
Collection of Tangible and Intangible Evidence
Insurance adjusters conduct extensive evidence gathering to determine how much fault can be assigned to each party. They rely on both tangible evidence, such as:
- Traffic camera footage
- Police reports
- Photographs of the accident scene
- Vehicle damage assessments
and intangible evidence, such as:
- Witness statements
- Recorded interviews with the involved parties
- Medical reports
This information is used to build a timeline of events and identify behaviors contributing to the accident. For example, skid marks on the road might suggest speeding. Inconsistent witness accounts might introduce reasonable doubt about who had the right of way. Adjusters are trained to interpret this data in ways that may help shift responsibility to the claimant.
Interpretation of Contributory Actions
Even minor claimant errors can become key elements in reducing payouts. Actions like failing to turn on headlights at dusk or not maintaining safe distance from other vehicles are commonly cited. These behaviors are viewed as contributory negligence, giving the insurer grounds to apply a proportional reduction in damages.
In Illinois, where the 51% rule sets a legal limit for recovery, these small details are critical. If enough are stacked against the claimant, they may cross the threshold into ineligibility for compensation.
Comparative Fault in Common Insurance Scenarios
Rear-End Collisions
In most cases, the driver who hits another car from behind is assumed to be at fault. However, adjusters may argue that the lead driver “stopped suddenly without warning” or “failed to use hazard lights.” These statements support a partial fault assignment to the front driver, reducing the payout.
Intersection Accidents
Intersections are prime zones for shared liability arguments. Adjusters review who had the right of way, whether signals were obeyed, and how fast each driver was traveling. Even if one party clearly violated a signal, any fault by the other—like speeding or poor visibility—can be used to argue for shared blame.
Slip and Fall Claims
In property liability cases, insurers often argue that the injured party “failed to notice a visible hazard” or “ignored warning signs.” These claims are used to assign a percentage of fault to the claimant, again lowering the final compensation.
Claim Denial Strategies Based on Fault Ratio
Threshold-Based Denials
If the adjuster can document that the claimant’s fault exceeds 50%, the insurer has no legal duty to pay under Illinois law. These threshold-based denials are often supported by detailed documentation that layers multiple small errors by the claimant to push their fault percentage over the legal bar.
Partial Payment Offers
When total denial is not feasible, adjusters offer partial settlements. For instance, if a claimant is found to be 40% at fault in a $10,000 claim, the offer may be limited to $6,000. These offers are frequently presented as non-negotiable, pressuring claimants to accept lower compensation.
Negotiation and Counter-Strategies
Understanding Fault Calculations
Claimants who understand how comparative fault is calculated can challenge the adjuster’s conclusions. Illinois follows a proportional reduction model up to the 50% bar. Understanding that each percentage point impacts the final payout enables better negotiation leverage.
For example, if a claimant reduces their assessed fault from 45% to 30%, a $10,000 claim would shift from a $5,500 payout to $7,000. This margin can make a substantial difference and may warrant professional representation to negotiate.
Legal Representation and Expert Review
Attorneys and independent adjusters can review the insurer’s fault assessment, identify inconsistencies, and provide counterarguments. They may reference legal precedents, scrutinize report language, or introduce expert testimony. Such interventions often lead to reassessments or higher settlements.
Legal professionals also understand how to use Illinois case law effectively in disputes. For example, referencing similar past cases where plaintiffs recovered full compensation despite partial fault can weaken the insurer’s stance.
Appealing a Denial or Low Offer
If a claimant believes the comparative fault finding is unfair or unsupported, they have several options:
- Submit additional evidence (e.g., medical documentation, expert statements)
- Request a formal review from the insurer’s internal appeal department
- Engage legal counsel to file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Insurance
Each of these options can delay resolution but may result in a higher settlement, especially if the initial determination was based on weak or speculative evidence.
Structure of Insurance Adjuster Reports
Framing the Incident
Adjuster reports are structured to present a clear narrative that supports the insurer’s position. These documents often follow a standardized format:
- Introduction (summary of incident and parties involved)
- Factual Findings (details from evidence and interviews)
- Analysis (interpretation of behavior and conditions)
- Conclusion (statement of fault distribution)
The analysis and conclusion sections are especially important. These sections contain carefully selected language to emphasize claimant errors. Even in neutral scenarios, adjusters introduce ambiguity to justify a partial or full denial. For example, terms like “unclear” or “indeterminate” are used to cast doubt on the claimant’s version of events, even without direct evidence.
Layered Responsibility Narratives
Adjusters build fault narratives through layered responsibility claims. Instead of focusing on one major error, they often cite several small actions to create a pattern of contributory negligence. These might include:
- Failing to maintain proper lookout
- Not adjusting speed in poor weather
- Wearing inappropriate footwear (in slip-and-fall cases)
Each item is minor on its own but together helps justify a higher percentage of fault attributed to the claimant. This layered structure is deliberate and designed to raise the cumulative fault above critical legal thresholds.
Strategic Language Patterns
Shifting Blame with Passive Voice
Passive voice is commonly used to obscure direct blame. Instead of stating “The insured rear-ended the claimant,” the report might say “The vehicles came into contact as traffic slowed.” This wording avoids direct fault assignment and creates ambiguity that favors the insurer.
Use of Tentative Language
Adjusters often use tentative or suggestive phrasing to imply shared responsibility without explicit claims:
- “The claimant appeared distracted.”
- “Weather may have been a contributing factor.”
- “Claimant’s actions could have influenced the outcome.”
These phrases are effective in court-admissible documents because they avoid definitive claims while still suggesting alternate causes. This helps establish grounds for comparative fault reductions.
Omission of Favorable Facts
Selective omission is another tactic. Positive witness statements, clear right-of-way confirmations, or uncontested timelines may be excluded or downplayed in favor of ambiguous or conflicting details. This curated narrative structure allows the adjuster to present a case that justifies fault reallocation.
Claimant Tactics for Language-Based Disputes
Requesting Full Documentation
Claimants can request full copies of adjuster notes, evidence assessments, and decision rationale. Reviewing these documents can reveal:
- Misinterpretations
- Missing evidence
- Overstated behaviors
This opens the door to disputes based on factual or linguistic grounds.
Countering Biased Wording
With support from legal professionals, claimants can challenge biased report language. By pointing out use of tentative or passive language without supporting evidence, they can demand revisions or offer counter-statements.
Demanding Statutory Justification
If an insurer reduces or denies a payout based on fault claims, the claimant can request statute-specific references. In Illinois, if a report concludes that a claimant was 51% or more at fault, the insurer must justify this with detailed evidence under the provisions of 735 ILCS 5/2-1116.
If no such evidence is documented or the analysis appears speculative, the denial can be challenged either internally or through legal avenues.
Systemic Impact of Comparative Fault Usage
Claims Reduction as Business Strategy
Many insurers use comparative fault doctrines as a systemic cost-control measure. By routinely applying fault-sharing arguments, they reduce total payout liabilities across thousands of cases. Even modest fault attributions (e.g., 20%) across many claims create significant cumulative savings.
This is not accidental. Internal guidelines often encourage adjusters to explore every angle for partial fault, especially in jurisdictions like Illinois where the law allows for proportional recovery reductions.
Statistical Modeling and Predictive Denials
Insurers also use historical data to model payout risk. These models include claimant demographics, claim types, location, and typical behavior patterns. When models indicate a high probability of contributory fault, adjusters may begin from an assumption of partial liability. This statistical approach makes it harder for claimants to receive full payouts, especially without professional representation.
Final Thoughts: Empowering the Claimant
Understanding how adjusters build fault narratives, structure their language, and utilize legal frameworks gives claimants the tools to respond effectively. This includes:
- Reviewing adjuster documents in full
- Recognizing strategic language cues
- Engaging legal counsel when comparative fault arguments seem weak or unsupported
- Challenging unsupported deductions using statutory references and documented facts
Being informed is the most powerful defense against unfair reductions in compensation. Illinois law protects claimants from baseless denials—but only if they are prepared to recognize and counteract strategic adjuster tactics.
Ready to Get Started?
