Typically a courtroom opinion says extra about skilled self-discipline than it does in regards to the legislation. Tower Crossing Condominium Affiliation v. Affiliated FM Insurance coverage Firm, 1 is a kind of instances. The courtroom by no means reached the protection points. It didn’t debate whether or not hail hit the roofs or how a lot injury was owed. As a substitute, your complete case fell aside due to one procedural misstep. The case was misplaced as a result of a proof of loss wasn’t actually sworn.
After a July 2019 hailstorm, Tower Crossing’s public adjuster ready a Proof of Loss displaying $2.9 million in injury. The affiliation’s president, Kenneth Freedman, signed it within the presence of a notary. Later, after questioning whether or not that determine was sufficient, new building figures bumped the estimate to $4.3 million. Reasonably than re-executing the doc, the group making ready the proof merely copied the outdated, notarized signature web page and connected it to the revised Proof of Loss.
Large mistake.
When litigation adopted, Affiliated FM identified the apparent. The notary by no means witnessed or swore the president to that new $4.3 million assertion. The insurer moved for abstract judgment, arguing that the Proof of Loss was a authorized nullity as a result of it was unsworn, invalid, and subsequently incapable of tolling the coverage’s two-year swimsuit limitation.
Decide Hunt agreed. Beneath Illinois legislation, a “sworn” Proof of Loss means notarized. A notarization can’t be transplanted from one doc to a different. As a result of the $4.3 million type wasn’t correctly sworn, the limitation clock by no means stopped. The lawsuit was misplaced earlier than it started.
Tower Crossing misplaced not due to protection information, however as a result of a notary seal was reused.
The choose’s reasoning was simple:
- The coverage explicitly required a “signed and sworn” Proof of Loss.
- “Sworn” means given underneath oath, just like an affidavit, and never merely signed.
- A reused notary web page isn’t an oath in any respect; it defeats the aim of getting a impartial witness.
- With no legitimate Proof of Loss, there was no tolling underneath Part 143.1 of the Illinois Insurance coverage Code, so the case was premature.
The courtroom cited case precedent and Black’s Legislation Dictionary to emphasise {that a} “sworn” doc should contain a notary or different officer approved to manage oaths. The reattached web page, the choose wrote, didn’t rework the revised Proof of Loss into a legitimate sworn assertion. As a substitute, it was merely a bit of paper pretending to be one.
The Lesson for Public Adjusters
Public adjusters stay on this planet between the paperwork and the promise of protection. Chances are you’ll know the numbers, but when the method isn’t executed accurately, none of it issues.
This case drives dwelling the rule that each Sworn Proof of Loss should be:
Signed, Sworn, and Sealed —Every Time.
If a shopper adjustments figures, even by a number of {dollars}, that doc should be:
- Reprinted or reissued.
- Re-signed by the insured.
- Re-notarized with the notary witnessing that actual signature.
No shortcuts. No “reuse.” No digital cut-and-paste.
A notarization isn’t ornament. It’s the authorized ceremony that offers the assertion drive. The oath protects everybody, together with the insurer, the policyholder, and the credibility of the general public adjuster who stands behind the declare.
My current speech in regards to the historical past of proofs of loss mentioned this formal course of, which has been in place for hundreds of years. Each state is just a little totally different about what’s required for a doc to be “sworn.” However one lesson from this case is that one can’t swear to one thing earlier than it’s ready.
Skilled Integrity Issues
I’ve lengthy mentioned that public adjusters are the unsung professionals of the policyholder world. However with that function comes duty. Judges anticipate precision and honesty, particularly with paperwork sworn underneath oath. Tower Crossing’s group might not have meant to deceive, but their procedural shortcut undid years of labor and sure a whole bunch of hundreds in recoverable worth.
A single reused seal, relatively than 10 minutes extra of labor, value them their day in courtroom.
Thought for the Day
“Integrity has no want of guidelines.”
— Albert Camus
1 Tower Crossing Condominium. Assoc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 21-CV-06228 (N.D. In poor health Nov. 3, 2025). (See additionally, Memorandum in Assist of Affiliated FM Insurance coverage Firm’s Movement for Abstract Judgment, and Plaintiff’s Assertion of Undisputed Materials Info)