THE CLAIMKNIGHTS STANDARD
A higher standard.
Built into the work.
Our ambition is to become an industry standard of excellence. Here is what we intend to require—and how the pilot must demonstrate it.
OUR AMBITION
Make excellence repeatable.
ClaimKnights is being developed to raise the standard of property claims advocacy. Our objective is the full, defensible recovery available under the client’s policy, pursued with competent analysis, transparent communication, and disciplined representation.
We reject an operating standard that stops at passing an examination, assembling a rough estimate, or forwarding documents without explaining the claim. Those practices are insufficient whenever the complexity of the loss demands more. We intend to require professionals to demonstrate their reasoning and make their work reviewable.
Becoming an industry standard is our goal, not a distinction already earned. The initial pilot must establish whether these proposed requirements are consistently implemented and beneficial before broader expansion.
01 / AUTHORITY & ROLES
What a public-adjuster license means—and what it cannot prove.
A public adjuster is retained by the policyholder to assist with preparing, presenting, and settling an insurance claim. An insurer’s staff adjuster and an independent adjuster retained by the insurer work for the insurer. The principal each professional represents matters. See the Illinois Department of Insurance’s explanation of the roles.
The Illinois education baseline is limited: Pearson VUE’s current Illinois candidate handbook says public-adjuster candidates are not required to complete prelicensing education. It lists a 165-minute examination. Those facts are more precise than describing a universal six-week course or three-hour test. Requirements vary by jurisdiction and can change. Read the official candidate handbook.
That does not mean there is no regulation. Illinois requires an examination and additional licensing steps, including financial responsibility, fingerprinting, and contract approval. The Department states that a public adjuster cannot enter a contract with an insured until both the license and contract approval are in place. Review the Department’s licensing requirements.
Licensing establishes a legal threshold. It does not, on its own, demonstrate that a person can analyze a complex commercial loss, evaluate competing evidence, model financial consequences, or communicate a defensible position. ClaimKnights intends to assess those capabilities separately.
02 / DEMONSTRATED COMPETENCE
Education and critical thinking should be requirements.
Our proposed internal admission and assignment standard adds practical education and assessed judgment to verified licensing. The curriculum, qualification thresholds, reviewer appointments, and implementation are to be established and validated in the pilot.
- Verified authority and relevant experience. Check licensing and entity authority, then examine actual experience with the building type, loss complexity, and intended assignment. A residential background should not automatically qualify someone to lead a complex industrial loss.
- Required learning before independent case responsibility. Structured instruction in policy reading, building systems, estimating, financial-loss fundamentals, documentation, ethics, and jurisdiction-specific obligations. Maintain a record of completed learning and continuing development.
- Written scenario assessment. Require the candidate to explain the facts, missing evidence, policy questions, alternative explanations, calculation assumptions, and specialists needed. Assess reasoning and the ability to recognize uncertainty, not just recall terminology.
- Supervised practice and sign-off. Review sample work and supervised assignments before granting responsibility for the relevant case type. Scope of responsibility should grow with demonstrated competence.
- Assignment limits and peer review. Define when a case must be escalated to another licensed lead, an engineer, a financial specialist, or counsel. Material technical and financial conclusions receive qualified independent review.
- Remediation and reassessment. Document errors, training needs, and corrective action. Persistent failure to meet the standard should affect assignment eligibility rather than disappear into a file.
The question we intend to ask: “Can another qualified professional follow your reasoning, test your assumptions, and understand why this position is justified?”
03 / EVIDENCE QUALITY
A claim should withstand scrutiny.
The proposed file standard uses a source index, loss chronology, issue register, scope comparison, and financial reconciliation. Evidence should establish what is known without hiding what remains uncertain.
- Source integrity: preserve original records and identify the author, date, location, and relevant subject. Keep analysis distinguishable from source evidence.
- Coverage questions: the authorized professional identifies the relevant policy language and unresolved questions rather than treating every observed loss as covered.
- Technical scope: connect quantities, conditions, repair methods, and causation conclusions to appropriate observations or specialist findings.
- Financial support: explain the baseline, assumptions, expenses, periods, and reconciliation. Separate estimated amounts, disputed amounts, and actual payments.
- Review trail: record who reviewed a material conclusion, what was challenged, and how the issue was resolved.
An unsupported item should trigger a request for evidence or a documented qualification. A stronger record means a more defensible claim, not an inflated claim.
See the evidence record in a commercial example →04 / THE PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE
Raise the bar where a process falls short.
These comparisons describe possible process shortcomings and our proposed response. They are not assertions that every public adjuster, insurer, or regulator behaves this way.
| If a process stops here | Our intended standard |
|---|---|
| A license is treated as sufficient evidence of competence. | Verify authority, assess written reasoning, require education and supervised sign-off, and match assignments to experience. |
| Photos and estimates are collected without a clear explanation. | Connect each material item to its source, location, chronology, supporting analysis, and qualified reviewer. |
| A single unexplained number becomes the claim position. | Show line-item scope, quantities, assumptions, financial calculations, and unresolved differences. |
| The client hears “we are working on it.” | State what changed, what is missing, who owns the next action, and when the next update is due. |
| A referral is made without explaining relationships. | Disclose relevant interests and fees, define the assignment, and preserve informed client choice. |
| An offer is called a successful outcome without reconciliation. | Separate offers, payments, receipts, fees, conditions, and remaining issues so the client understands the net position. |
| A complaint or demand relies on accusation alone. | Document the specific conduct, evidence, applicable obligation, client impact, and remedy sought. |
05 / CLIENT INTERESTS
Transparency before commitment.
The proposed model requires clear responsibility, disclosed financial interests, and informed client choice. The client should be able to understand which professional works for whom, who pays each provider, and whether a recommendation creates a potential conflict.
Specialist or contractor selection should be explained on its merits. Fees and scope must be agreed in the appropriate engagement. A service arrangement should not obscure the difference between licensed representation, construction work, financial analysis, and independent legal advice.
Policyholder decisions remain with the policyholder. No projected increase in recovery should be presented as a guarantee or used to conceal the costs and trade-offs of an engagement.
06 / ACCOUNTABILITY
Measure the work behind the promise.
The proposed pilot scorecard will focus on controllable operating discipline rather than unverifiable recovery claims.
- File completeness: unresolved evidence gaps, missing source records, and reasons for outstanding information.
- Technical review: material conclusions reviewed, errors identified, corrections made, and repeat failure patterns.
- Communication: agreed updates delivered, overdue actions explained, and decisions documented.
- Client authority: material choices and consents recorded with understandable options and trade-offs.
- Financial closure: payments and fees reconciled, conditions identified, and remaining issues communicated.
- Learning: required education, supervisor sign-offs, reassessment, and remediation documented.
Targets, responsibilities, and review intervals must be defined before the pilot uses this scorecard to authorize expansion. A faster file is not a better file if important evidence has been omitted.
07 / INDUSTRY CHANGE
Challenge deficient practices with evidence and resolve.
ClaimKnights’ ambition extends beyond individual files. We intend to advocate for stronger professional competence, fair claims practices, meaningful consumer choice, and regulatory standards that protect policyholders.
We are prepared, where justified and within our authority, to challenge insurer positions and industry-backed policy proposals that weaken policyholder protections. We also believe regulatory guidance should clearly distinguish the insurer’s interests from those of a professional retained by the policyholder. Recommendations and conduct should be evaluated against evidence, fairness, and the consumer’s ability to make an informed choice.
At the case level: document the specific disputed conduct or position; identify the supporting records and relevant obligations; request a clear explanation; and evaluate the appropriate professional or legal escalation with the client. Complaints, contractual mechanisms, and litigation have different roles and require case-specific review.
At the policy level: the proposed approach includes documenting recurring problems, developing evidence-based reform proposals, engaging professional organizations, contributing to public consultation, and working through appropriate legal and legislative channels. Possible priorities include competence beyond examination entry, transparent incentives, stronger client communication, and meaningful accountability for deficient claims practices.
Any use of a client’s experience for broader advocacy must protect confidential information and obtain the necessary consent. Advocacy must support the client’s interests rather than turn their loss into publicity.
We will judge institutions and practices by documented conduct. Our ambition is firm: raise the standard, challenge rules that fail policyholders, and make excellence measurable. The operational and advocacy programs described here are proposed, not claimed as already established.
PRIMARY SOURCES
Verify the baseline.
Licensing information was checked on October 8, 2026. This is an explanation of the planned business standard, not individualized legal or coverage advice.