Last year, Rule 2-1 was updated to address Auto filings. The updated rule states that while evidence is always to be attached where appropriate within the recovery workflow, this is critical in an Auto filing, specifically in regards to evidence attached to support the feature damages as this evidence is viewable to the adverse parties.

Rule 2-1 also advises that the Recovering Party will have the option to revisit the filing should a Responding Party assert policy limits, an exclusion, a damage dispute, or add a party. 

As our members adjust to the revised rule and how it applies in the Auto Forum, there has been some confusion around when and which types of evidence can be considered on a revisit. The following scenarios are provided to clarify the usage of rebuttal evidence.  

  Scenario 1

1. Alpha files for Auto damages ($2,500), rental ($150), and their deductible ($250). Alpha properly attaches their estimate to the Feature Information Workflow step but overlooks attaching proofs for the rental damages. 
2. Beta disputes the rental citing Rule 2-1 and argues no rental invoice was provided so they are unable to verify duration and/or vehicle type. 
3. On revisit, Alpha attaches their rental invoice to support the rental damages.

Was Rule 2-1 met? The answer is no because Alpha did not properly attach their rental invoice when they initially filed to support the rental being sought. 

Scenario 2

1. Alpha files for total loss and enters the following damages: 
   1. Valuation: $15,500
   2. Rental: $750
   3. Storage: $250
   4. Towing: $500
   5. Salvage recovery: $3,000
   6. Deductible: $500
   Alpha properly attaches their total loss evaluation, towing/storage bill, rental invoice, vehicle photos, and salvage report. 
2. Beta disputes damages citing Rule 2-1 and argues no repair estimate was provided to prove the vehicle was a total loss. 
3. On revisit, Alpha attaches their repair estimate in support of their decision to deem their insured’s vehicle a total loss. 

Was Rule 2-1 met? The answer is yes because Alpha is filing for total loss damages and properly shared the evidence to support the amounts being sought. Rule 2-1 does not prohibit a Recovering Party from adding rebuttal evidence to address a specific damage dispute when completing their revisit.  

Note: If damage evidence has been previously shared in E-Subro Hub or direct negotiations, the damages should not be disputed because the evidence was not properly attached in the arbitration filing. The evidence documentation was previously shared, and specific damages can be disputed, if needed.