CT Claims Adjuster common mistakes
CT Claims Adjuster · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Applying the PAP coverage stack in the order that matches how a real claim file moves (liability first, then collision, then UM/UIM as an afterthought) rather than the order the policy's insuring agreements require, and forgetting that Connecticut UM/UIM limits must match the liability limits unless a signed written reduction was obtained.
Candidates learn claims from desk experience where the tortfeasor's liability decision drives everything; exam items instead test the policy's internal structure and the state-mandated UM/UIM default, so habit overrides the tested rule.
What to do instead
Build a one-page map of PAP Part A through Part D and drill the CT rule that UM/UIM defaults to the liability limits absent a written election of lower limits; answer every coverage question by naming the part and the insuring agreement before doing any math.
Treating a homeowners loss as a single ACV number and stopping there, without separating Coverage A/B/C/D, applying the deductible to the correct coverage, or explaining the recoverable depreciation holdback on a replacement cost settlement.
Auto total-loss habits carry over: one value, one deductible, one payment. Homeowners forms split coverage parts and condition the second payment on repair, and candidates who have not handled dwelling claims skip that structure.
What to do instead
Practice five-item drills that force you to label each damaged item as A, B, C, or D, state ACV, state RCV, state the holdback, and state which deductible applies, before you look at the answer choices.
Using a pure comparative negligence or a contributory negligence framework in a Connecticut negligence question instead of Connecticut's modified comparative fault rule with its 51% bar, and missing joint and several liability among multiple tortfeasors.
Many study sources are national and default to pure comparative or the old contributory bar; candidates who do not reset to state law import the wrong percentage rule and pick a defensible-sounding but wrong answer.
What to do instead
Memorize the single sentence 'Connecticut bars recovery at 51% claimant fault' and practice three-fact-pattern questions where the claimant is 30%, 49%, and 51% at fault until the cutoff is automatic.
Reading a commercial general liability question as if it were an occurrence-form personal policy: missing the occurrence versus claims-made trigger, the retroactive date, and the 'your work' and 'impaired property' exclusions when a contractor's defective work damages the project.
Commercial lines are the least-familiar domain for personal-lines adjusters, so candidates answer from general liability intuition and ignore the form-specific trigger and exclusions that the item is actually testing.
What to do instead
For every CGL item, first write down trigger (occurrence or claims-made), retro date, and whether the damage is to the insured's own work or to other property; then evaluate the exclusions in that order.
Confusing a reservation of rights letter with a denial, or failing to recognize that a late-notice question turns on prejudice to the insurer rather than on the calendar alone, and answering the ethics item as if the coverage decision were already final.
Adjusters in training conflate 'we are still investigating' with 'we are denying,' and exam items deliberately place a coverage question next to an ethics question so the candidate carries the wrong posture into the second item.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed three-step answer pattern for every coverage-uncertainty item: acknowledge, reserve rights in writing, investigate; and separately state whether the insured was prejudiced before you evaluate any late-notice defense.
Skipping the 'arising out of and in the course of employment' two-part test in workers' compensation items and instead deciding compensability from the injury's severity, or ignoring the exclusive remedy doctrine when a third party also caused the harm.
Candidates reason from sympathy and from tort intuition, so a serious injury feels compensable and a negligent third party feels like a reason to sue the employer; the exam tests the statutory test and the exclusive remedy bar, not the outcome.
What to do instead
Force yourself to write 'arising out of = work-related risk; in the course of = time and place' on every WC item, then separately ask whether the exclusive remedy doctrine blocks a tort claim against the employer.
Answering adjuster licensing and continuing education questions using producer licensing rules, or assuming Connecticut reciprocity eliminates the need to know Connecticut's own adjuster license classes, appointment, and CE reporting cycle.
Producer and adjuster licensing are taught together, and candidates who hold or have studied for a producer license assume the same thresholds and deadlines carry over.
What to do instead
Create a side-by-side table of producer versus adjuster requirements limited to Connecticut, and quiz yourself on adjuster license classes, CE hours per cycle, and reporting deadlines until the two columns stop blending.
Mixing up indemnity and liability concepts in foundational items, for example treating 'occurrence' and 'accident' as interchangeable, or assuming a coinsurance clause applies to a liability policy because it appeared in an earlier property question.
Foundational vocabulary is studied early and then assumed, so small definitional slippage survives into later domains and shows up as errors on items that should be free points.
What to do instead
Re-derive the core definitions from the policy language rather than from memory: occurrence, accident, damages because of bodily injury, damages to property, coinsurance, and indemnity. Write each definition once per study session.
Handling an investigation item by choosing the fastest-sounding step (recorded statement, quick settlement offer) instead of the legally required sequence, such as contacting a represented claimant directly, or failing to document the claim file contemporaneously.
Exam items reward the defensible process, not efficiency; candidates with production pressure pick the answer that closes the file fastest and miss the ethical and regulatory constraint being tested.
What to do instead
Before answering any investigation or ethics item, ask 'is the claimant represented, and is this contact permitted?' and 'would this step be documented in the file?' Eliminate any option that fails either test, then choose among the remainder.
Assuming Connecticut's unfair claim settlement practices rules are generic national standards and guessing at acknowledgement, investigation, and payment timeframes instead of knowing which conduct is enumerated as an unfair practice.
Every state has a version of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and candidates assume the numbers are uniform, so they pattern-match to a number they saw in another state's material.
What to do instead
Study the enumerated list of unfair claim settlement practices as conduct categories (misrepresenting policy provisions, failing to investigate, unreasonable delay, offering substantially less than due) rather than as isolated day counts, and flag any specific timeframe you are not certain of for review.