What Do the Adjustments on a Total-Loss Valuation Report Mean?

An "adjustment" on a total-loss valuation report is a change used to make one piece of valuation evidence more comparable to another or to reflect a characteristic of the totaled vehicle itself. Some adjustments modify comparable-vehicle prices for mileage or equipment differences. Others may address the loss vehicle's condition, prior damage, aftermarket equipment, or other characteristics. A deductible, salvage retention, tax, fee, or lienholder payment is a different type of settlement item and should not automatically be confused with a valuation adjustment.

There are three different layers of numbers in a total-loss report

Before disputing any number, identify which layer it belongs to.

Comparable adjustment vs. loss-vehicle adjustment

Imagine the insurer uses a dealer vehicle as a comparable.

Comparable: 2021 vehicle, $30,000 asking price, 52,000 miles.

Loss vehicle: 2021 vehicle, 42,000 miles.

The valuation may adjust the comparable price because its mileage differs from the loss vehicle. That is a comparable-vehicle adjustment.

Now imagine the loss vehicle itself has documented unrepaired prior body damage that existed before the collision. A valuation methodology may separately account for that characteristic of the loss vehicle. That is a loss-vehicle adjustment.

Those are conceptually different operations.

Mileage adjustments

A mileage adjustment attempts to account for the difference between the mileage of the loss vehicle and the mileage of a comparable vehicle.

Example:

• Loss vehicle: 40,000 miles
• Comparable: 62,000 miles

If everything else were equal, the higher-mileage comparable may need an adjustment before its price is used to estimate the lower-mileage loss vehicle.

But do not assume 10,000 miles equals a fixed dollar amount, or that one cent-per-mile formula applies nationwide.

Mileage methodology can vary by:

• valuation system
• vehicle
• market
• model year
• data source

Audit questions:

1. Is the loss-vehicle mileage correct?
2. Is the comparable mileage correct?
3. Which direction did the adjustment move?
4. What method produced the adjustment?
5. Is that method applied consistently across the comparable set?

See how to document an incorrect mileage input.

Equipment and trim adjustments

A comparable does not necessarily have every factory feature found on the loss vehicle.

A valuation may therefore adjust for differences such as:

• trim
• drivetrain
• engine/powertrain
• factory packages
• navigation
• premium audio
• seating packages
• towing package
• driver-assistance equipment
• wheels
• other material factory equipment

The first question is not "Is the adjustment large enough?" It is "Was the difference identified at all?"

Then ask: "How did the methodology account for the difference?"

Example: loss vehicle is a Limited AWD; the comparable is a Base FWD. If the report recognizes neither trim nor drivetrain differences, that may deserve review. If it shows an adjustment, examine whether the report explains what was adjusted and in which direction.

See how comparable vehicles are evaluated.

Condition adjustments

A condition adjustment attempts to account for the pre-loss condition of the totaled vehicle, not the collision damage that caused the claim.

This distinction matters. The relevant comparison is generally the condition of the vehicle immediately before the covered loss.

Potential condition categories can include:

• exterior
• interior
• mechanical
• tires
• paint/body
• other categories defined by the valuation methodology

Do not assume every valuation vendor uses the same categories or scoring system.

A condition adjustment deserves closer review when:

• the described defect did not exist before the accident
• accident damage appears to have been confused with pre-loss condition
• the condition rating has no visible supporting explanation
• the report is internally inconsistent
• reliable pre-loss photographs contradict the described condition
• the same issue appears to be reflected twice

See what evidence can support a condition correction.

Prior-damage adjustments

Prior damage is damage that existed before the loss being settled. That is different from the collision damage that caused the total loss.

If a valuation makes a prior-damage adjustment, ask:

• What prior damage is being identified?
• Was it actually present before the loss?
• Was it repaired before the loss?
• What evidence supports the adjustment?
• Is the same issue also reflected in a condition adjustment?

Avoid double counting.

Example: if pre-existing door damage is already explicitly deducted as prior damage, examine whether the same damage is also being used to reduce a separate condition category.

Not every duplicate-looking adjustment is legally prohibited. Identify the apparent overlap and ask the insurer to explain it.

Aftermarket and refurbishment adjustments

Some valuation methodologies separately recognize aftermarket equipment or refurbishment.

Mitchell's published WorkCenter Total Loss methodology, for example, lists an aftermarket part adjustment and a refurbishment adjustment as examples of loss-vehicle adjustments.

That does not mean every insurer, every valuation vendor, every policy or every state uses those categories. It also does not mean the original purchase cost of an aftermarket part is automatically added to ACV.

Ask:

1. Was the item actually installed on the vehicle?
2. Does the applicable methodology recognize it?
3. Does the policy limit or exclude certain custom equipment?
4. What market-value contribution, if any, is being recognized?

What is a projected sold adjustment?

"Projected Sold Adjustment" is a vendor-specific term commonly associated with Mitchell WorkCenter Total Loss; it is not a generic adjustment used by every total-loss valuation system.

Publicly available descriptions of Mitchell's methodology explain that a Projected Sold Adjustment may reduce an advertised comparable price to reflect an estimated transaction price when the vehicle has not been sold at the listed amount.

In simple terms:

• Dealer asks: $30,000
• Valuation methodology estimates the vehicle may transact below the asking price
• Projected sold adjustment: -$1,200
• Adjusted market input: $28,800

Illustrative example only. $1,200 is not presented as a typical amount.

The important questions are:

• Is this adjustment actually present in your report?
• Which comparable received it?
• What does the report say the adjustment represents?
• Is the methodology permitted under the policy and applicable state rules?
• Is the adjustment being challenged under state-specific law?

Projected sold adjustments are not nationwide always valid or always unlawful. Legal treatment can depend on jurisdiction, policy language, methodology, and current case law.

Age-of-ad and listing adjustments

Some valuation methodologies may also account for characteristics of the market listing itself.

For example, a publicly available description of Mitchell WorkCenter Total Loss lists an Age of Ad Adjustment based on the relationship between the advertisement date and the loss date.

Again: this is an example of a specific valuation methodology. It is not a universal total-loss requirement.

When you see an unfamiliar adjustment name, do not guess what it means. Find the report's methodology explanation or ask the insurer for the basis.

What is NOT a valuation adjustment?

Do not dispute a deductible by arguing about comparable vehicles. Do not dispute a mileage adjustment by arguing about your loan balance. Match the argument to the line item.

A complete adjustment example

• Comparable dealer asking price: $31,500
• Projected sold adjustment: -$900
• Mileage adjustment: +$600
• Equipment adjustment: +$400
• Adjusted comparable price: $31,600

Then assume several adjusted comparables produce:

• Base vehicle value: $31,200
• Loss-vehicle condition adjustment: -$300
• Concluded vehicle value: $30,900

Then:

• Applicable collision deductible: -$1,000
• Illustrative net payment before other applicable settlement items: $29,900

Notice the order. The projected sold, mileage and equipment lines changed the market evidence. The condition line changed the loss-vehicle value conclusion. The deductible did not make the vehicle worth less — it changed the insurance payment under the assumed first-party policy example.

That distinction is essential when auditing the report.

The six-question adjustment audit

For every unfamiliar adjustment, ask:

1. What is being adjusted? The comparable? The subject vehicle? The final settlement?
2. Why? What difference is the adjustment trying to account for?
3. Direction? Did it increase or decrease the value?
4. Evidence? What fact or data supports it?
5. Consistency? Was the same logic applied consistently across comparable vehicles?
6. Duplication? Is the same difference already reflected somewhere else?

If you cannot answer those six questions from the report, ask for clarification before assuming the adjustment is correct or incorrect.

Adjustment red flags worth reviewing

A red flag means "review this." It does not mean "the insurer definitely underpaid the claim."

• loss-vehicle mileage is factually wrong
• equipment adjustment is based on an incorrect configuration
• trim difference is not identified
• drivetrain difference is not identified
• condition defect appears unrelated to pre-loss condition
• condition rating conflicts with reliable pre-loss evidence
• adjustment direction appears reversed
• one comparable is treated differently without explanation
• same apparent defect is reflected in multiple adjustment categories
• adjustment exists but methodology or basis is not visible
• prior damage was already repaired before the loss but still appears as existing prior damage
• aftermarket equipment is present but subject vehicle information omits it
• a settlement deduction is being mistaken for a reduction in ACV

How to challenge an adjustment without guessing

Example — customize before sending:

Hello,

I reviewed the valuation report and would like clarification on the following adjustment:

Adjustment: [adjustment name]

Vehicle / comparable: [identify the subject vehicle or comparable]

Report amount: [$ amount]

My concern: [describe the factual issue]

Supporting evidence: [list the attached evidence]

Please explain the methodology and factual basis for this adjustment and confirm whether the valuation should be recalculated based on the attached information.

Thank you.

This is an organizational example, not legal language or a required form.

See total-loss valuation evidence and how to negotiate a total-loss settlement.

How the major valuation questions fit together

• Did they value the correct vehicle? → Valuation evidence
• Are the comparable vehicles reasonable? → Comparable vehicles
• Was a prior-damage deduction applied? → Prior-damage audit
• What do the +/- adjustment lines mean? → Valuation adjustments (you are here)
• Does the final value appear supportable? → Offer-too-low diagnosis
• How do I challenge the remaining disagreement? → Negotiation
• My own policy dispute remains unresolved → Appraisal clause

See adjustments on your report that don't make sense?

Upload the valuation report. AutoACV can review the vehicle inputs, comparable adjustments, condition treatment and settlement structure and help identify which lines deserve a closer look.

• Upload your valuation report
• What evidence should I gather?
• Audit the comparable vehicles
• See a sample appraisal report

Sources and methodology

• [1] NHTSA-hosted Mitchell WorkCenter Total Loss — Vehicle Valuation Methodology Explanation — vendor methodology example, not a nationwide insurance rule. Describes comparable vehicle search, mileage, equipment, condition, prior damage, aftermarket-part and refurbishment adjustments.
• [2] Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation — official hearing/order document containing an overview of Mitchell WorkCenter Total Loss methodology — used only for the vendor-methodology examples, including Projected Sold Adjustment, Age of Ad Adjustment, mileage, equipment, condition, prior damage, aftermarket part and refurbishment. Not a nationwide approval of every adjustment.
• [3] Georgia Secretary of State — Rule 120-2-52, Fair and Equitable Settlement of First Party Property Damage Claims — a Georgia-specific example that vehicle valuation can involve characteristics such as manufacturer, model year, body style, options and mileage. Georgia requirements are not generalized nationwide.
• [4] Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner — "What happens after your car gets totaled" — Washington-specific total-loss valuation, comparable and appraisal context.