Iran Loss Adjuster Exam common mistakes
Iran Loss Adjuster Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Applying the policy's depreciation or average (underinsurance) clause to a total loss without first checking whether Iranian statutory rules or the specific policy wording override it, and calculating indemnity from the sum insured rather than from the actual value at risk.
Candidates memorise the principle of indemnity as a single formula and treat all property claims identically, so they skip the step of identifying which valuation basis (actual cash value, reinstatement, agreed value) the policy actually specifies.
What to do instead
Before any arithmetic, write one line naming the valuation basis, the applicable clause reference, and whether average applies; then apply the formula. Practise with three worked examples: partial loss with average, total loss, and a policy with an agreed-value endorsement.
Treating the third-party motor liability award as covering only the direct damage to the claimant's vehicle, ignoring the heads of damage Iranian compulsory motor liability covers (bodily injury, medical costs, lost income, and diyeh where applicable) and the priority order of payment.
Candidates conflate own-damage cover with third-party liability and have not internalised that the compulsory motor third-party scheme has a separate statutory structure, limits, and settlement order from the voluntary own-damage section.
What to do instead
Build a one-page map of the compulsory motor third-party scheme: who is covered, what heads of loss are payable, how the limit applies per accident and per victim, and which items are excluded. Redo past claim scenarios against that map line by line.
Deciding a claim is fraudulent or exaggerated and recommending rejection on the basis of one anomaly (for example a single inconsistency in the claimant's statement or a repair estimate that looks high) without corroborating evidence or documenting the reasoning.
Under time pressure, candidates want a decisive answer and mistake suspicion for proof; they also underestimate the professional and legal exposure of an unfounded fraud finding against an adjuster and the insurer.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed threshold: an allegation of fraud requires at least two independent corroborating indicators plus a documented chain of reasoning. In practice answers, state the indicators, state what further evidence would confirm or eliminate them, and recommend a reservation-of-rights position rather than outright rejection.
Answering questions on the legal effect of a breach of the duty of disclosure or a policy condition by stating the general rule (the insurer may avoid the contract) without addressing the Iranian statutory tests of materiality, good or bad faith, and the effect of the specific condition (for example a condition precedent to liability).
Candidates learn the common-law-sounding headline and do not distinguish between the rules governing formation of the contract, the rules governing claims conditions, and the regulatory rules on handling complaints and disputes.
What to do instead
For each contract-law topic, prepare a three-column note: statutory rule and article reference, policy clause type it affects, and consequence for the claim decision. Test yourself by classifying five short scenarios into the correct column before writing the answer.
Confusing the roles and legal powers of the regulator, the insurer, and the loss adjuster, and describing the adjuster as having authority to bind the insurer or to determine legal liability.
The adjuster's mandate is often described loosely in study material, and candidates generalise from the practical fact that insurers usually follow the adjuster's recommendation.
What to do instead
Memorise a one-sentence mandate statement: the adjuster investigates, quantifies, and recommends; the insurer decides and pays. In every answer, attribute the decision to the insurer and the recommendation to the adjuster, and cite the mandate or appointment terms where relevant.
Calculating a business interruption or loss-of-profit claim by applying the policy limit to the turnover figure, or omitting the indemnity period and the increased cost of working from the calculation.
Candidates treat business interruption as a property sum-insured problem and have not practised the rate-of-gross-profit or additional-expenditure method, which is conceptually different from material damage.
What to do instead
Work through the standard formula: gross profit rate, the indemnity period, the reduction in turnover, and the saved insured standing charges, then test whether increased cost of working is economic. Do two full numerical examples end to end, including one where the additional expenditure exceeds the loss avoided.
For engineering claims, applying the property policy's defect and wear-and-tear exclusions mechanically to a construction or erection risk without checking the specific defects-liability cover, the maintenance period, and the design-versus-workmanship distinction.
Candidates revise engineering insurance last and reuse property exclusion language, missing that contractors' all-risks and erection-all-risks policies have their own structure of cover during construction and maintenance.
What to do instead
Draw a timeline of an engineering project (construction period, testing and commissioning, maintenance period) and note what is covered and excluded at each stage. Then answer one scenario per stage, naming the clause that decides the outcome.
Writing the loss adjustment report as a narrative of what was seen, without the required structural elements: policy reference, sum insured and basis, cause-of-loss determination, quantum build-up, deductions, recommended settlement figure, and reservation of rights.
Candidates write as if describing the loss to a colleague rather than producing a decision document for an insurer, so the report lacks the auditable trail the examiner is looking for.
What to do instead
Use a fixed report skeleton and practise writing three reports to it under time pressure. Check each report against a five-point list: traceable figures, cited clauses, stated cause, explicit deductions, and a clear recommendation with any reservations.
Handling a life or health claim by focusing on the medical facts and overlooking the policy's pre-existing condition definition, the waiting period, the disclosure history at underwriting, and the contestability or suicide exclusion period.
Candidates find the medical narrative engaging and the contractual conditions dry, so they under-weight the clauses that actually determine whether the claim is payable.
What to do instead
For each life and health scenario, answer four questions before anything else: what is the definition of the triggering event, is any waiting or exclusion period running, was the relevant fact disclosed at proposal, and does the claim fall inside or outside the contestability window.
Assessing the cause of a fire or property loss without a documented investigation sequence, and accepting the claimant's or the fire service's stated cause as established without testing it against the physical evidence and the policy exclusions.
Candidates treat cause of loss as a fact to be reported rather than a conclusion to be argued, and they underestimate how often the cause determines whether an exclusion (arson, faulty design, electrical fault) applies.
What to do instead
Use a standard investigation sequence: scene and burn-pattern observation, origin determination, ignition source, and elimination of alternative causes. In practice answers, state the cause as a reasoned conclusion with the evidence supporting it and the exclusion analysis that follows from it.