Verified Case Results
Every case result below is verified and documented. These are the actual settlements achieved through the formal insurance appraisal process for real Wisconsin and nationwide commercial clients.
Get a Free Claim ReviewFeatured Results
Examples of disputed claim positions resolved through valuation, documentation, and appraisal support.
Initial carrier position materially undervalued structural, code, and business-interruption components.
Roof, elevations, and accessory structures were re-scoped with full replacement support.
Expanded mitigation, contents, and rebuild pricing changed the valuation picture substantially.
Steep-slope roofing, specialty finishes, and full scope correction drove the final number.
Multi-building damage required corrected line-item estimating and broader scope recognition.
Hidden damage, tear-out, and business personal property were initially missed.
Complex machinery impact, specialty electrical, and downtime exposure were properly documented.
Custom finishes, smoke remediation, and premium rebuild pricing changed the claim outcome.
Framing, roofing, and functional loss were not properly captured in the original carrier estimate.
Shared systems, interior finishes, and code-related upgrades expanded the recoverable amount.
Insulation, membrane roofing, and structural corrections were undervalued at first inspection.
Kitchen systems, smoke spread, and business interruption required broader valuation support.
Ceiling systems, flooring, tenant improvements, and drying scope were initially understated.
Guest-room finishes, roof systems, and operating impact required comprehensive claim repositioning.
Large-surface roofing, interior leaks, and code upgrades materially changed the award value.
Cabinetry, specialty flooring, and infection-control rebuild requirements increased the valuation.
Outbuilding components, roofing, siding, and debris removal were inadequately priced.
Restoration-grade materials and specialty reconstruction support substantially changed the outcome.
Electrical systems, equipment exposure, and extensive remediation support drove the correction.
Multi-tenant repairs, signage, facade work, and coordinated scope review increased recovery.
Structural compromise, detached structures, and contents exposure required full re-evaluation.
Roofing, facade, glazing, and related damage categories were broadened and supported.
Unit-by-unit scope, plumbing access, flooring, and cabinetry were expanded across the property.
Smoke spread, racking, electrical, and operational impacts required major claim correction.
Millwork, hardwood restoration limits, and specialty finish replacement drove the change.
Roof assemblies, siding systems, and code-related restoration were initially undercounted.
Occupied-loss constraints and specialty rebuild sequencing materially affected the valuation.
Multiple structures, rooftop units, and envelope damage created a broader compensable loss.
Dining room finishes, kitchen tear-out, and downtime-related scope changed the position.
Complex rebuild conditions, detached structures, and premium interior finishes were supported.
Commercial-residential overlap, specialty scope, and access complexity changed the claim value.
Large-scale envelope damage, interior intrusion, and operational disruption supported the increase.
Aggregate Recovery
6.4× increase — $6,043,500 additional recovery across 5 cases
Combined Results
Total Initial Offers (5 Cases)
$1,116,500Total Final Settlements (5 Cases)
$7,160,000Additional recovery above initial offers: $6,043,500
These five cases represent a sample of our work. The pattern is consistent: insurance companies offer far less than the true value of the damage, and the formal appraisal process — when invoked by an expert — closes that gap dramatically.
Why These Results Are Possible
The appraisal clause in your policy creates a binding legal process. Once invoked, the insurer cannot simply refuse to pay the award. This gives you real leverage.
Haag certification is the industry gold standard. Our inspection reports document damage at a level of detail and credibility that is extremely difficult for insurance companies to dispute.
Insurance adjusters often use outdated pricing, apply excessive depreciation, or miss damage entirely. Our appraisal methodology uses current contractor pricing and full replacement cost standards.
The formal appraisal process involves a neutral umpire who can decide disputes. This takes the decision out of the insurance company’s hands entirely.
Many policyholders are unaware they’re entitled to code upgrade costs in their settlement. We document and argue for every element of your policy coverage.
Large commercial claims have the most complexity and the highest potential for underpayment. Our expertise in commercial damage documentation is a significant factor in these outcomes.
Our Methodology
Every case result above followed the same methodology: comprehensive damage documentation, Haag-certified inspection protocols, current-cost valuation, and aggressive advocacy through the formal appraisal process.
We begin with a detailed property inspection that covers every potentially damaged surface — not just the most obvious damage. Hail impact patterns, wind damage directionality, water intrusion paths, secondary damage from deferred repairs — everything is photographed, measured, and documented.
Our appraisal reports are built to withstand scrutiny from the insurer’s appraiser, engineering consultants, and neutral umpires. The documentation we produce doesn’t just describe the damage — it proves it, quantifies it, and ties it directly to your policy’s coverage provisions.
Questions About Our Results
Individual results vary significantly by claim, property type, and damage severity. The 282× result for Gates & Sons is an extreme outcome. However, the underlying pattern — initial offers that dramatically undervalue genuine property damage — is extremely common. Wisconsin insurance companies routinely underpay hail and storm damage claims, and the formal appraisal process consistently delivers better outcomes than accepting the initial offer. Every case we review where we believe formal appraisal is warranted has shown meaningful improvement over the initial offer.
Common signs of an underpaid claim include: settlement amounts that don’t cover actual repair bids from contractors, adjuster reports that don’t mention obvious damage you can see, settlements that exclude code upgrade costs your municipality requires, or simply a feeling that the offer doesn’t reflect the full scope of your loss. The most reliable way to find out is a free claim review with an independent expert. We tell you honestly whether we believe formal appraisal is warranted for your specific Wisconsin situation.
Find out in a free 15-minute review whether your Wisconsin property damage claim is worth fighting for. We only get paid when you get a better settlement.