Adjuster Counteroffer Rebuttal Letter
After an adjuster responds to your demand with a low offer and a list of reasons, when you want a disciplined, record-based response instead of a general complaint about the number.
A demand letter rarely produces the first offer you want. Adjusters typically respond with a number and a short list of reasons to discount the claim: a gap in treatment, a prior back injury, comparative fault, billed charges that exceed what insurers paid, or treatment they call excessive. The response that moves the number is one that answers each reason specifically from the record, not one that repeats the demand more loudly.
This prompt builds that response in three steps. Claude first lists every reason the adjuster gave or implied, quoting their words. It then matches each reason to the record evidence that answers it, citing the document, and says plainly when the record does not answer a point. Finally it drafts a point-by-point rebuttal letter in the same order, with a revised demand and deadline you set, and leaves concessions and legal authority as decisions for you.
The letter is only as strong as the record behind it, and the prompt will not invent explanations for a treatment gap or a prior injury. Legal points such as billed versus paid amounts or comparative fault depend on your jurisdiction, so authority stays as a placeholder you fill in. Review the strategy, the number and every citation yourself; the output is a draft for attorney review.
The Prompt
I represent [CLIENT NAME] in a personal injury claim arising from [INCIDENT] on [DATE] in [JURISDICTION]. The insurer has responded to our demand with an offer I consider too low. I want a firm, professional rebuttal letter. <document name="our_demand"> [PASTE OUR DEMAND LETTER] </document> <document name="adjuster_offer"> [PASTE THE ADJUSTER'S OFFER LETTER OR NOTES OF THE CALL] </document> <document name="supporting_record"> [PASTE RELEVANT EXCERPTS: medical records, provider notes explaining treatment gaps, prior medical history, police report, witness statements, wage records] </document> Current offer: [AMOUNT OFFERED]. Revised demand: [AMOUNT]. Response deadline: [DATE]. Step 1. List every reason the adjuster gave, or clearly implied, for discounting the claim (for example a gap in treatment, a pre-existing condition, comparative fault, billed versus paid amounts, excessive or unnecessary treatment, low property damage, or disputed lost wages). Quote the adjuster's words for each. Note any reason that is vague or unsupported. Step 2. For each reason, identify the record evidence that answers it, quoting the source and citing the document. If the record does not answer a point, say so plainly and do not invent a response. Step 3. Draft the letter: - Opening: claim number, [SETTLEMENT-COMMUNICATION HEADING, IF ANY, UNDER THE APPLICABLE RULE], reference to the offer, and that it is rejected. - Point-by-point rebuttal in the same order as Step 1, each with record citations. - Points we concede or decline to argue, if any (leave as [ATTORNEY DECISION]). - Revised demand of [AMOUNT] and the deadline. - Professional close, with no threats beyond what I authorize: [LITIGATION POSTURE, e.g., "suit will be filed if not resolved"]. Do not cite case law or statutes unless I provide them; use [AUTHORITY] where a legal point needs support. This is a draft for attorney review, and every citation and record reference must be verified before sending.
Example Output
An analysis table of each discounting reason with the record evidence that answers it, followed by a point-by-point rebuttal letter ending in a revised demand and deadline.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
STEP 1-2: ADJUSTER REASONS AND RECORD RESPONSE 1. Gap in treatment. Adjuster: "There is a 7-week gap between the ER visit and PT, which suggests the injury resolved." Record: PT intake 04/02 notes "patient delayed PT due to waitlist; reports continuous neck pain since MVC" (PT-01 p.1). Primary care note 02/24: "neck pain persists; PT referral placed" (PCP-02). 2. Pre-existing condition. Adjuster: "Prior chiropractic care in 2023 for the same area." Record: 2023 chiropractic discharge: "full ROM, pain 0/10, released" (CHIRO-01). Client's prior-treatment history lists no neck treatment in 2024 or 2025 (MED-HX-01) [VERIFY against prior records]. 3. Billed vs paid. Adjuster: "We evaluate specials at amounts paid." Record: not a factual point. [AUTHORITY] needed on [JURISDICTION] rule. 4. Comparative fault. Adjuster: "Your client was speeding." Record: none in our file answers this. Police report lists no citation to client (POL-01) but does not address speed. [ATTORNEY DECISION] DRAFT LETTER Re: Claimant Abel Sorensen | Claim No. KH-26-77104 | Insured: Corinne Hale Dear Mr. Pruett: We received your August 14 offer of $18,500. It does not reflect the documented injuries and is rejected. We address each of your stated reasons below. Gap in treatment. Mr. Sorensen did not stop treating. On February 24, his physician recorded that his "neck pain persists" and referred him to physical therapy. The therapy clinic's own intake confirms the delay was a waitlist, and that he reported "continuous neck pain since MVC." Prior chiropractic care. Mr. Sorensen was released from care in 2023 with "full ROM, pain 0/10" and his prior-treatment history shows no neck treatment in 2024 or 2025. Billed charges. [AUTHORITY] Comparative fault. [ATTORNEY DECISION: the record does not address speed; respond or omit] We are prepared to resolve this claim for $[AMOUNT] if accepted by [DATE]. If not, we will proceed as authorized by our client. Sincerely, [ATTORNEY NAME]
Tips
- •If the offer came by phone, write up the adjuster's stated reasons as close to verbatim as you can and paste those notes. Vague notes produce vague rebuttals.
- •Look hard at the points Step 2 says the record does not answer. Those are your real settlement weaknesses and may justify more treatment documentation before you respond.
- •Provide any authority on billed versus paid or comparative fault yourself. The prompt keeps legal citations as placeholders on purpose.
- •Keep the revised demand number and litigation language your own decision; tell Claude exactly what posture you authorize. If the deadline is meant to work as a time-limited or policy-limits demand, check [JURISDICTION] requirements for those demands first, since some are set by statute.
- •This is a draft for attorney review; verify every record citation and any authority before the letter goes out.
Frequently Asked Questions
What if the adjuster gave no real reasons for the low offer?
Step 1 will flag the offer as vague or unsupported. Many attorneys respond by asking the adjuster in writing to identify the specific basis for the valuation, which creates a record and gives you something concrete to rebut. You can ask Claude to draft that short request instead of a full rebuttal letter.
Why won't the prompt add case law to the letter?
Legal points like the treatment of billed versus paid amounts or comparative fault turn on your jurisdiction's law, and AI-generated citations must never go out unverified. The prompt leaves [AUTHORITY] placeholders so you can insert authority you have confirmed. Many rebuttal letters work well on the record alone, without citing cases at all.
Should I concede weak points in the letter?
That is a strategy decision, and the prompt leaves it marked [ATTORNEY DECISION]. Sometimes acknowledging a minor point makes the rest of the letter more credible; sometimes silence is better. Step 2 shows you exactly which points the record does not answer, so you can make that call with full information.
Can I use this for a mediation or a second-round negotiation?
Yes. Paste the latest offer and the history of prior offers, and ask Claude to track how the adjuster's reasons have changed between rounds. For mediation, the Step 2 analysis also feeds a mediation statement, since it lays out the defense's arguments and your record answers side by side.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.