The Consequences of Not Documenting Clearly: Lessons From My Early Years as an Adjuster
Tone fades, facts remain. This article shares lessons from early claim handling and why clear documentation protects adjusters, carriers, and credibility
When I first started handling claims many years ago, I believed that good customer service and good investigative work naturally went hand in hand. I thought if I listened closely, stayed polite, and kept things moving, everything else would fall into place.
What I didn’t understand yet was how much “noise” comes with this job and how easily that noise can influence decisions, documentation, and ultimately, the direction of a claim.
In those early years, I sometimes found myself reacting more to how a claimant spoke to me than to what the facts actually showed.
1. When the Claimant’s Tone Shapes the Claim
I can look back now and clearly see the patterns:
When a claimant was calm, warm, or polite, I tended to trust their version of events more easily.
When a claimant was aggressive or confrontational, I sometimes rushed through a file just to end the interaction.
When someone sounded emotional, I felt pressure to resolve things quickly to avoid being the cause of distress.
When someone came across as confident, I doubted my instincts and second-guessed myself.
When someone was rude, I found myself doubting their credibility based on attitude alone.
All of these reactions were human, but they weren’t investigative.
Tone is not evidence.
Emotions are not documentation.
Noise is not the truth.
2. The Impact: When Documentation Doesn’t Match The Reality
When tone influenced my decisions, it influenced my documentation too — and the consequences became clear over time.
I began noticing:
File notes that lacked detail
Because I was more focused on the person’s tone than the facts being presented.
Missed inconsistencies
Because I was responding to emotion, not evidence.
Files that were hard to explain later
Because what I felt took priority over what I wrote.
Frustration from supervisors or SIU
Because the file didn’t fully tell the story of what actually happened.
Increased exposure in litigation
Because emotional summaries don’t hold up under legal scrutiny.
Difficulty recalling the file months later
Because there wasn’t enough documentation to reconstruct my thought process.
At some point, I realized that my documentation reflected my reactions not my analysis, and in claims, that distinction matters more than most people realize.
3. When “Noise” Replaces Evidence, Clarity Suffers
Claimants can be:
Upset
Angry
Polite
Manipulative
Rushed
Frustrated
Persuasive
Calm
Charming
None of these are indicators of fraud. None of these are indicators of legitimacy. They are simply human interactions. When we let tone influence our decisions, we risk:
paying what shouldn’t be paid
Denying what should be approved
Missing red flags
Overlooking inconsistencies
Losing credibility
Creating poor investigative foundations
The truth is this:
Noise can drown out facts if we let it.
4. The Turning Point: Learning to Write for the Reader, not for the Moment
Over time, I learned one of the most important lessons in claims:
Documentation isn’t for the claimant.
It’s for the reader the person who comes after you. That reader might be:
An SIU investigator
A supervisor
An auditor
A regulator
An attorney
Or even you, months later
Clear documentation means:
Every fact is captured
Every timeline makes sense
Every inconsistency is explained
Every decision is anchored in evidence
Every next reader can pick up where you left off
The file can stand on its own without your memory
That’s professionalism. That’s protection. That’s clarity.
5. What I Do Differently Now (and What I Wish I Knew Then)
Here’s how I learned to silence the noise:
I document facts, not feelings
“The claimant changed their date twice” not “the claimant was rude.”
I separate tone from truth
Nice people can commit fraud.
Mean people can have valid claims.
I stick to timelines, evidence, and objective observations.
The file should read like a story not a reaction.
I ask clarifying questions even when conversations feel difficult.
Conflict avoidance leads to incomplete documentation.
I take time to pause before writing my notes
Notes written in frustration never age well.
I remember that every note must be defendable:
If it can’t stand in court, it shouldn’t be in the file.
These practices changed everything.
6. Closing Thought:
“Tone fades. Facts remain.”
When I look back on those early years, I’m grateful for what they taught me. Experience helped me grow. But clarity helped me become a better investigator, a better analyst, and a better professional.
Emotions happen.
Voices rise and fall.
Claimants come and go.
But documentation is what stays and when clarity leads the file and not the noise, the truth becomes much easier to see.