A loss adjuster appointed by the insurer acts on that insurer’s instructions. This does not automatically make the report unreliable, but it is different from an expert appointed by a court. You may challenge factual errors and conclusions and, where necessary, instruct your own expert. Reimbursement of an independent assessment depends, among other things, on the question investigated and the reasonableness of the costs.
Written by Onur Arslan, lawyer at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the Netherlands Bar’s register of legal practice areas for employment law and personal injury. Translation updated: 27 September 2026, based on the Dutch text substantively updated on 26 September 2026. This article concerns Dutch law.
First request the complete report and its underlying assumptions. Is the dispute about the amount of an insured loss or whether its cause falls within the policy? That distinction matters when choosing an expert, assessing costs and deciding the next legal step.
What does a loss adjuster do?
An adjuster may investigate cause, extent and repair options. The assignment may be limited to a technical inspection or include a detailed valuation. Ask exactly what the expert was instructed to assess and which information was used.
The insurer generally makes the final coverage decision. A technical report can be important evidence, but an expert’s comment on policy coverage is not automatically a binding legal ruling. Check who issued the rejection or payment offer.
“Independent” also needs explanation. An expert may have a professional obligation to work objectively while being paid by one party. That differs from a jointly appointed expert with a binding mandate or a court-appointed expert. The role affects how the report is used and challenged.
When may you question the report?
You may question factual assumptions, measurement methods, the proposed repair and omitted loss items. A report should explain how its conclusion was reached. A final amount without understandable reasoning may justify requesting clarification.
A disagreement does not automatically establish bias or incompetence. Identify the specific error: an incorrect area, age, missing invoice or a repair method your contractor considers technically impracticable.
Where appropriate, ask for a supplement before ordering another investigation. A factual correction may resolve the dispute. A fundamental disagreement about cause or method may instead require your own expert to provide a substantive response.
Requesting the complete report
Request the report with relevant attachments, photographs, calculations and source references. If the insurer supplies only a summary, explain which conclusion you need to check and why its basis is necessary. Keep earlier versions too.
A report may contain third-party personal data or other confidential information. That may affect disclosure arrangements, but does not automatically justify every refusal. Request targeted redaction or an understandable explanation for missing information.
Check the instructions and limitations. An inspection without access to certain rooms may have different evidential weight from a complete technical investigation. If the expert identifies uncertainty, the insurer should explain how it treated that uncertainty in its decision.
Coverage and the amount of loss are different disputes
| Dispute | Example of an appropriate question |
|---|---|
| Amount of an insured loss | Which repair costs are necessary to remedy the insured damage? |
| Cause and coverage | What caused the loss, and does this fit the policy description? |
| Valuation | Which current-value, replacement-value or other valuation basis was agreed? |
| Repair method | Is local repair technically sufficient, or is more extensive work necessary? |
An independent expert who calculates a higher repair amount does not automatically rebut rejection for an uninsured cause. Conversely, a dispute over one item need not become an entirely new causation investigation. The instructions must address the real dispute.
If rejection concerns an alarm or inspection clause, that provision first needs legal interpretation. See rejection under a prevention clause. This helps avoid an expensive report on an issue that cannot determine the outcome.
When are independent expert costs reimbursable?
Article 7:959(1) of the Dutch Civil Code places reasonable costs of establishing the loss on the insurer. This concerns quantifying damage covered by the insurance. Under the statutory rules, those costs can also matter when compensation plus assessment costs exceeds the sum insured.
Article 7:963(6) protects consumers against disadvantageous departures, within its stated limit for costs relative to the sum insured. The insurer cannot simply replace that protection with a general rule that an expert you appoint is always at your own expense.
This does not mean every invoice must be paid without scrutiny. Both the decision to appoint an expert and the work and costs must be reasonable. For business insurance, assess the scope for contractual departures: consumer protection does not automatically apply to every business.
The two-part reasonableness test
First, was appointing an expert reasonable? Complexity, the explanation in the initial report and the significance of the dispute can matter. Independent assessment is not limited to very large losses, but its necessity should be explained.
Second, are the costs reasonable? Consider hours, rates, visits and their relationship to the question investigated. An itemised invoice helps demonstrate what work was performed and why it was needed.
An insurer may obtain favourable rates because of the volume of instructions it gives. Those rates are not automatically the benchmark for a consumer instructing one expert. If an invoice is reduced, ask which work or rates are specifically considered unreasonable.
What the Supreme Court decided about restrictions
In its judgment of 28 January 2022, the Supreme Court confirmed that reimbursement does not depend on the independent expert establishing that the insurer valued the loss too low. Restrictions going beyond the two-part reasonableness test may also conflict with the statutory scheme.
An insurer cannot therefore simply exclude every expert without a particular affiliation in advance, or make reimbursement conditional on obtaining a higher valuation. The expert’s quality and suitability may still be relevant to whether appointing them was reasonable.
Read the protection together with the scope of Article 7:963. The judgment does not provide unlimited reimbursement for every investigation or business policy. The research question, insured person’s capacity and reasonable costs remain essential.
Must your expert be registered with NIVRE?
Professional registration can provide information about expertise and applicable professional standards. Ask about experience with your type of loss. A building surveyor, vehicle valuer and business-interruption specialist do not automatically have the same expertise.
Lack of a particular registration does not automatically justify refusing reimbursement under consumer insurance. The Supreme Court considered restrictions beyond the statutory reasonableness test. Suitability and the actual instructions therefore require substantive assessment.
For concerns about professional conduct, investigate the complaints or disciplinary scheme applying to that expert. It may assess conduct or standards without deciding your insurance entitlement. Keep the complaint against the expert distinct from the coverage dispute.
What if the dispute concerns only the cause?
If the issue is whether there is any coverage, reimbursement of your expert is not automatically governed by the rules for quantifying an insured loss. Kifid’s explanation expressly makes this distinction.
A causation investigation may still be legally useful or necessary. Depending on the outcome and legal basis, the costs may be considered under another route, but that is not an advance guarantee. Establish who bears which cost risk before instructing the expert.
For mixed assignments, specify which work concerns cause and which concerns amount. Separate instructions and invoice items make later assessment easier. Labelling everything “independent assessment” does not determine the reimbursement rules for all the work.
Agree costs before signing
Request a written quotation identifying work, rates, estimated hours and additional expenses. Check whether you are the contracting client and what you owe if the insurer reimburses only part. “The insurer usually pays” is not a clear fee agreement.
Ask whether the quotation can be discussed with the insurer in advance. This may reduce disputes, without making every restriction imposed by the insurer valid. Record what was agreed and whether cost approval says anything about coverage; these are usually separate issues.
Read powers of attorney, assignments of claims and outcome-related arrangements carefully. Understand the authority you grant and whether the expert may accept a binding assessment on your behalf. Authority to investigate does not necessarily include authority to conclude every settlement.
Two experts and a third expert
A policy may provide for your expert and the insurer’s expert to try to agree the amount of loss. If they disagree, a third expert may be appointed. That person’s role and the binding effect follow from the arrangements.
Ask who chooses the third expert, which question will be submitted and whether the decision concerns only the amount. A binding valuation does not automatically decide coverage unless the instructions clearly include it. Check costs as well.
Challenging a binding assessment later may be difficult. Do not sign a deed without understanding which amounts and issues become final. Seek clarification about reservations for hidden damage or unknown repair costs where relevant.
Collecting evidence without disrupting the investigation
Take dated photographs and retain purchase receipts, maintenance records and quotations. Note what the expert inspected and which areas were inaccessible. Send factual corrections promptly so they can still be included.
Necessary loss mitigation sometimes cannot wait. Record why immediate repairs were necessary and the condition beforehand. Keep damaged parts where safe and practical, and coordinate inspection before non-essential work destroys evidence.
A contractor’s quotation can be useful evidence, but is not automatically a complete expert rebuttal. Ask what technical support is required. Sometimes a targeted explanation suffices; sometimes independent investigation of the method or amount is needed.
A fictional dispute about the amount of loss
After water damage, the adjuster proposes local floor repairs. The insured says partial replacement is technically impossible. A useful independent assessment examines the material, joints, availability of matching parts and agreed valuation basis.
Sending a higher quotation alone does not explain why the first repair plan is inadequate. A technical explanation can. If both experts ultimately reach the same amount, that does not automatically mean a reasonably conducted second assessment was unnecessary.
This differs from rejection because the cause is uninsured. There, causation and policy coverage must be considered first. The appropriate expert and fee arrangements follow from that distinction.
Challenging the substance of a report
List concrete points: the fact or conclusion, why you dispute it and the supporting evidence. Refer to report pages or sections in your correspondence. A general accusation of bias without substantive objections is usually less helpful.
Ask the insurer to respond and, if needed, obtain a supplement from the expert. If part of the loss is undisputed, ask whether that part can be paid without finally settling the remainder. Record reservations in writing.
If your expert’s fee is disputed, request an itemised rejection. Which hours were supposedly unnecessary, and why? Comparing only the total with the insurer’s own expert is not always sufficient. The two-part reasonableness test requires concrete application.
Complaints and legal assistance
Consumers may approach Kifid after the internal procedure, subject to its conditions. Check participation, jurisdiction and deadlines. A professional complaint against an expert does not automatically replace the route against the insurer or preserve limitation.
Court proceedings may suit business insurance, a different procedural choice or a complex evidential or binding-effect issue. Discuss costs and the risk of incomplete reimbursement. A carefully limited research question can avoid unnecessary expense.
Arslan Advocaten can assess policies, reports and fee agreements and help formulate appropriate expert questions. This aligns the technical investigation with the legal claim before a new report is commissioned.
Record disagreements before experts negotiate
Before the experts confer, establish the exact differences. Do they concern the number of damaged items, repair method, hourly rate, depreciation or additional costs? Ask your expert to itemise them. An unexplained total makes it difficult to assess whether a compromise is reasonable.
Discuss the authority granted to your expert. May they investigate only, or also sign an assessment? What consequences does signature have under the policy or instructions? Resolve uncertainty before agreeing. An expert agreement on the amount may affect your options while a separate coverage dispute remains open.
Keep the final calculation and reservations. After agreement, ask which amounts were established, which items were excluded and who settles expert fees. This helps prevent an agreement on repair costs being interpreted as acceptance of a much wider settlement.
Assess independence in concrete terms
Ask who instructed the expert, their qualifications, previous involvement and relevant interests. Payment by the insurer does not automatically invalidate a report. Equally, an expert title does not prove that every conclusion falls within the person’s expertise.
Check the instructions, documents used and response to contrary evidence. Joint appointment may involve different arrangements from a one-sided party report. An objection should identify the error affecting the outcome.
See also challenging a personal injury expert report (Dutch) and expert evidence through court (Dutch).
Frequently asked questions about loss adjusters
Is the insurer’s expert automatically biased?
No. The instruction relationship does not automatically make the report unreliable. You should be able to assess its assumptions and conclusions. Distinguish party experts, jointly appointed experts and court experts.
May I always appoint my own expert?
You can consult your own expert, but reimbursement and binding procedures require separate assessment. Match the instructions to the real dispute and agree costs and authority beforehand.
Must my expert find a higher amount to be paid?
This is not a general statutory condition. The Supreme Court focuses on reasonable appointment and reasonable costs. Careful independent investigation can be reasonable even without a higher final valuation.
May the insurer reimburse only NIVRE experts?
A categorical restriction can go beyond what the statutory consumer reasonableness test allows. Expertise remains relevant. Assess the policy, insured person’s capacity and particular expert, rather than deciding on one registration alone.
Are expert costs in a coverage dispute always insured?
No. Investigating whether cover exists does not automatically fall within reimbursement of costs of quantifying insured damage. Ask about the legal basis and cost risk before commissioning work.
Which documents does Arslan Advocaten need?
The policy, rejection or payment calculation, reports, photographs and your independent expert’s quotation are a useful starting point. Arslan Advocaten can assess evidence and costs. Approach, required expertise and legal fees are discussed in advance.
Further reading
- Insurance claim rejected: your options (Dutch)
- Water damage rejected: leakage, maintenance or coverage? (Dutch)
- When to litigate against an insurer (Dutch)
- Vehicle damage: earlier damage, repairs and total loss disputes (Dutch)
Sources and legal basis
- Supreme Court, 28 January 2022, Article 7:959 and independent assessment.
- Kifid: reimbursement of your independent expert’s invoice.
- Kifid rules.
The Dutch source text records source checks on 16 September 2026. Articles 7:959, 7:963 and 6:96 of the Dutch Civil Code, the policy and the specific expert instructions determine the costs and evidence position.
