The “Three Bids” Myth: Why Your Insurance Company Cannot Require Multiple Contractor Estimates

No California statute, regulation, or standard policy provision requires policyholders to obtain three contractor bids before a claim will be paid. This article explains where the “three bids” myth comes from, why carriers perpetuate it, how it harms policyholders, and exactly how to respond when an adjuster demands multiple estimates.

You have filed a property insurance claim. The damage is real. Your contractor has inspected the property, prepared a detailed estimate, and provided you with a written scope of work and a price. You submit it to the insurance company. And then you hear something that sounds reasonable but is not: “We need you to get three bids before we can move forward.”

Maybe the adjuster says it casually, as if it were common knowledge. Maybe they say it with a tone of bureaucratic inevitability — as though this is simply how the process works and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Maybe they put it in writing: “Please obtain at least three competitive bids from licensed contractors and submit them for our review.”

It sounds like a rule. It sounds like something written in the policy. It sounds like something required by California law. It is none of these things.

The “three bids” requirement is a myth — one of the most persistent and damaging myths in residential property claims handling. It is not in your insurance policy. It is not in the California Insurance Code. It is not in the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations. It is an internal carrier guideline that has been packaged and presented to policyholders as though it were an obligation. And it serves one purpose: to reduce the amount the carrier pays on the claim.

Where the “Three Bids” Rule Actually Comes From

Every insurance company has internal claims handling procedures — manuals, desk guidelines, workflow protocols, best practices documents — that tell their adjusters how to process claims. These internal procedures are not part of the insurance contract. They are not disclosed to policyholders. They exist for the carrier's operational benefit.

Many of these internal procedures include a directive that adjusters should request multiple estimates when the policyholder submits a contractor's bid that exceeds the carrier's own Xactimate-generated number. The logic, from the carrier's perspective, is straightforward: if a policyholder's contractor prices the job at $85,000 and the carrier's desk estimate says $52,000, requesting two additional bids creates the possibility that one of those bids will come in lower. If one of the three bids is $58,000 and another is $71,000, the carrier now has a number it can point to as “market validation” of a lower price — or simply pay the lowest of the three.

This is not a neutral fact-finding exercise. It is a pricing strategy designed to generate a number that supports the carrier's position. The three-bid request does not emerge when the policyholder's contractor comes in below the carrier's estimate. No carrier has ever told a policyholder, “Your contractor is too cheap — please get two more bids so we can make sure you're getting quality work.” The request only flows in one direction.

Over time, this internal guideline has been externalized. Adjusters say it so often, with such conviction, that it has migrated from the carrier's desk procedures into the general public consciousness. Policyholders tell each other. Contractors hear it and repeat it. Real estate agents believe it. Even some attorneys who do not practice insurance law assume it is true. The myth has taken on a life independent of its origin.

But it remains what it has always been: an internal carrier procedure that the carrier has no legal authority to impose on its policyholders.

What the Policy Actually Says

Standard homeowners insurance policies — the ISO HO-3, the HO-5, and their proprietary carrier equivalents — contain a “Duties After Loss” section that describes what the policyholder must do after filing a claim. These duties typically include:

• Prompt notice— notify the insurance company of the loss
• Protect the property— take reasonable steps to prevent further damage
• Cooperate with the investigation— answer questions, provide access to the property, submit to examination under oath if requested
• Provide a proof of loss— submit a sworn statement documenting the claim, if requested
• Produce records— provide books of account, receipts, and other documentation reasonably related to the loss

Read those duties carefully. None of them say “obtain three contractor bids.” None of them say “obtain two contractor bids.” None of them require the policyholder to obtain any contractor estimates at all. The policyholder's duty is to prove the loss — to demonstrate that covered damage occurred and to document its extent. How the policyholder does that is left to the policyholder. A detailed contractor estimate is one way. A public adjuster's estimate is another. Photographs, expert reports, invoices for emergency work already performed — all of these can establish the scope and cost of the loss.

More importantly, the duty to prove loss is distinct from the duty to investigate the claim. The policyholder proves. The carrier investigates. Those are separate obligations belonging to separate parties, and the three-bid demand improperly collapses one into the other.

The Carrier's Duty to Investigate — Not the Policyholder's

California Insurance Code Section 790.03(h)(3) makes it an unfair claims settlement practice for an insurer to fail to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims. Section 2695.7(d) of the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations further provides that every insurer must conduct and diligently pursue a thorough, fair, and objective investigation. The word “investigation” appears repeatedly throughout the regulations, and it is always attached to the insurer, not the policyholder.

When a carrier tells a policyholder to go get three bids, the carrier is doing something that deserves careful scrutiny: it is taking its own obligation — the duty to investigate the claim and determine what the loss costs to repair — and shifting that obligation onto the policyholder. The policyholder is now spending their own time, using their own resources, and expending their own energy to do the carrier's job.

If the carrier believes the policyholder's contractor's estimate is unreasonable, the carrier has every right to investigate. The carrier can send its own adjuster or inspector to the property. The carrier can prepare its own Xactimate estimate. The carrier can retain an independent expert. The carrier can even obtain its own competitive bids from contractors the carrier selects. All of that is the carrier's right. It is also the carrier's expense and the carrier's responsibility.

What the carrier cannot do is outsource that investigation to the policyholder. The policyholder submitted a claim and supported it with documentation. The policyholder has met their burden. If the carrier disagrees with the policyholder's numbers, the carrier must do its own work to substantiate that disagreement — not instruct the policyholder to go comparison shopping on the carrier's behalf.

Why the Three-Bid Demand Is Harmful

The three-bid requirement is not merely wrong as a matter of law and policy. It causes real harm to policyholders in concrete, measurable ways.

It Creates Delay

Obtaining a detailed contractor estimate is not a quick process. A contractor must visit the property, assess the damage, measure the affected areas, determine the scope of work, research material costs, calculate labor, and prepare a written document. For a significant loss, this process can take days to weeks. Multiply that by three, and the carrier has manufactured weeks or months of delay before the claim moves forward.

During that delay, the policyholder may be displaced from their home. They may be paying rent while waiting for repairs to begin. They may be watching secondary damage develop as temporary repairs deteriorate. The delay is not neutral — it has a cost, and the policyholder bears it entirely.

For carriers, delay has a different calculus. Every week a claim remains unpaid is a week the carrier earns investment income on the reserves. Every month the policyholder waits is a month the policyholder becomes more tired, more frustrated, and more willing to accept a lower number just to get the process over with. The economic incentive structure of the three-bid demand is worth understanding clearly.

It Wastes Contractors' Time

Preparing a detailed estimate for a property loss is not free for the contractor. It costs time, fuel, and labor. Many contractors invest hours in a site visit and estimate preparation, often at no charge to the homeowner, on the expectation that if their price is acceptable, they will get the job. When a policyholder tells three contractors that they need competing bids for an insurance claim, at least two of those contractors are doing work they will never be compensated for. Many experienced contractors recognize this dynamic and decline to participate. The ones who show up may be contractors who are hungry for work — which is not necessarily the same thing as contractors who are qualified for the specific project.

It Generates Inconsistent Scopes, Not Comparable Prices

Three different contractors will produce three different estimates. That is not because one is right and two are wrong. It is because each contractor has a different methodology, a different level of experience with the specific type of damage, different supplier relationships, different overhead structures, and different views about what work the project requires.

One contractor may include demolition of the affected drywall. Another may assume the existing drywall can be dried and refinished. One may price the flooring replacement using engineered hardwood; another may specify site-finished solid hardwood. One may include temporary climate control during the drying phase; another may not. These are not price differences — they are scope differences. And scope differences cannot be resolved by comparing bottom-line numbers.

When the carrier receives three bids of $85,000, $71,000, and $58,000, the carrier does not investigate why the numbers differ. The carrier does not ask what each contractor included or excluded. The carrier takes the lowest number — or averages the three — and presents that as the “reasonable cost of repair.” The policyholder who submitted the $85,000 estimate from their preferred contractor is now told that the “market” says the repair costs $58,000. But the $58,000 estimate may have omitted half the necessary work.

Contractors Who Know They Are Competing May Not Provide Their Best Scope

When a contractor knows they are one of three bidders on an insurance claim, and that the carrier will likely select the lowest bid, some contractors respond by trimming their scope. They remove items that the property needs but that might make their price look high compared to competitors who leave those items out. This is rational behavior from the contractor's perspective — a lean estimate is more likely to be selected — but it means the policyholder ends up with a repair plan that does not actually restore the property to its pre-loss condition.

The contractor the policyholder originally selected — the one who wrote the thorough, detailed, $85,000 estimate — may be the only one who properly accounted for code upgrades, permit requirements, finish matching, temporary housing coordination, and the other elements that a complete restoration requires. But that contractor's estimate is now the outlier, and the carrier is using the two lower bids to justify underpayment.

It Cherry-Picks Data to Support a Predetermined Conclusion

Consider how the three-bid process actually works from the carrier's perspective. The carrier already has an Xactimate estimate that it believes (or at least asserts) represents the reasonable cost of repair. The policyholder has submitted a higher number. The carrier does not request three bids because it needs information — it already has an estimate. The carrier requests three bids because it needs ammunition. It needs a lower number from a third party that it can use to justify its position. The process is not investigative. It is adversarial, dressed in the language of reasonableness.

Your Right to Choose Your Own Contractor

One of the most fundamental rights a policyholder has in the claims process is the right to choose their own contractor. You are not required to use a contractor the carrier selects. You are not required to use a contractor from the carrier's preferred vendor list. You are not required to use the cheapest contractor you can find. You have the right to hire the contractor you trust, the contractor with the appropriate expertise for your specific type of damage, and the contractor who will restore your property to the standard the policy promises.

Your insurance policy is a contract that promises to pay the cost to repair or replace damaged property. It does not promise to pay the lowest possible cost. It does not promise to pay the cheapest contractor's price. It promises to pay the cost to repair the damage using the methods and materials necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. If your contractor is the one who can do that work, and their price reflects the actual cost of doing it properly, that is the amount the carrier owes.

The three-bid demand is, in practice, a mechanism for undermining this right. If the carrier can compel you to obtain competing bids, and then select the lowest one, the carrier has functionally chosen your contractor for you. You still have the theoretical right to hire whomever you want, but the carrier will only pay based on the lowest bid. The difference between your contractor's price and the carrier's chosen number comes out of your pocket. This is not an accident. It is the intended result of the three-bid process.

The Relationship Between “Three Bids” and Preferred Vendor Steering

It is worth noting how the three-bid demand often intersects with carrier preferred vendor programs. Here is a pattern that repeats across carriers and claim types: the policyholder submits their contractor's estimate. The carrier says it is too high and requests three bids. The policyholder struggles to find two additional contractors willing to bid on an insurance claim. Eventually the carrier offers a helpful suggestion: “We have a contractor who is familiar with our process and can get started right away. Would you like us to send them out for an estimate?”

The carrier's preferred contractor arrives, surveys the damage, and produces an estimate that — perhaps unsurprisingly — closely matches the carrier's own Xactimate number. The policyholder now has two estimates: their contractor's at $85,000 and the carrier's preferred vendor's at $54,000. The carrier declares the lower number reasonable and issues payment at that amount.

Whether the preferred contractor's estimate accurately reflects the cost of a proper repair is a question worth asking. Preferred vendors maintain their position on the carrier's list by, among other things, providing estimates that align with the carrier's expectations. The dynamics of that business relationship are explored in detail in our article on preferred contractor conflicts of interest. For present purposes, the point is that the three-bid demand can function as a gateway to preferred vendor steering. The policyholder is told to get three bids, finds it difficult, accepts the carrier's recommended contractor, and ends up with a repair plan that serves the carrier's financial interests more than the policyholder's restoration needs.

Tortious Interference: When the Carrier Goes Further

In some cases, the three-bid demand escalates into something more problematic. The carrier does not merely ask for additional bids — it actively discourages the policyholder from using their chosen contractor. The adjuster might say that the contractor's estimate is “unreasonable” or “inflated.” The adjuster might suggest that the contractor is taking advantage of the policyholder. The carrier might refuse to speak with the contractor directly or might communicate to the contractor that the carrier will only pay a fraction of the bid.

When a carrier takes steps to interfere with the relationship between a policyholder and their chosen contractor, it raises serious legal questions. California law recognizes the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations, and courts have applied it in the insurance context. A carrier that uses the three-bid process as a tool to undermine the policyholder's contractor relationship may be exposing itself to liability beyond the policy limits.

The One Legitimate Scenario — and Why It Still Does Not Require Three Bids

There is a legitimate version of this conversation, and it is important to distinguish it from the illegitimate one.

If a policyholder submits a contractor's estimate and the carrier has a good-faith, articulable basis for questioning specific line items — not just the total, but specific items — then the carrier has the right to investigate further. The carrier can retain its own expert. The carrier can prepare its own estimate. The carrier can send an inspector to the property to verify the scope. The carrier can even obtain its own competitive bid from a contractor of its choosing.

But all of that is the carrier's work, performed at the carrier's expense, using the carrier's resources. The carrier's right to investigate does not create an obligation for the policyholder to do the investigating. If the carrier believes the policyholder's contractor is overcharging, the carrier should be able to demonstrate that with its own evidence — its own estimate, its own expert, its own market data. If the carrier cannot support its position without relying on the policyholder to generate competing numbers, that tells you something important about the strength of the carrier's position.

Even in this scenario, the carrier cannot require three bids from the policyholder. The carrier can request additional information. The carrier can ask the policyholder to explain specific line items. The carrier can ask for documentation supporting material costs or labor rates. These are reasonable requests that fall within the policyholder's duty to cooperate. But “go get two more bids from other contractors” is not a request for information — it is a demand that the policyholder perform the carrier's investigative function.

The Demand Surge Problem

The three-bid demand becomes particularly harmful after a catastrophic event — a wildfire, an earthquake, a major storm. In these situations, the entire premise collapses under its own weight.

After a catastrophe, every licensed contractor in the affected area is overwhelmed with work. Thousands of properties need repair simultaneously. Demand for labor, materials, and equipment spikes dramatically. Contractors who would normally bid on a residential project are booked for months. The ones who are available are often from out of the area, unfamiliar with local building codes and permit requirements, and charging premium rates because they have relocated to a disaster zone.

In this environment, getting one qualified contractor to inspect the property and prepare a detailed estimate is difficult. Getting three is functionally impossible — or at best, a process that adds months to an already protracted claim. Requiring a policyholder who has just lost their home in a wildfire to obtain three competitive bids from licensed contractors in a market where contractors are booking jobs six months out is not a reasonable request. It is an obstacle.

Demand surge also affects pricing. When demand for construction services dramatically exceeds supply, prices rise. This is basic economics. A contractor who ordinarily charges $45 per hour for framing labor may charge $65 or $75 in a post-catastrophe market, because that is what the market commands. The carrier's Xactimate estimate, which may still be running on pre-catastrophe pricing data, does not reflect this reality. The policyholder's contractor's bid does. The three-bid demand, in a post-catastrophe context, is a mechanism for ignoring demand surge by cherry-picking the contractor who has not yet adjusted their pricing — or who is cutting scope to win work in a competitive environment.

For more on how actual contractor pricing should control over Xactimate, including Verisk's own acknowledgment that its database prices may not reflect actual market conditions, see our detailed analysis.

How to Respond When the Carrier Demands Three Bids

When an adjuster tells you that you need to provide three bids, here is how to respond — calmly, professionally, and firmly.

Step 1: Ask for the Policy Provision

Ask the adjuster to identify the specific policy provision that requires you to obtain three bids. Ask for the page number and section. Do this in writing — email is preferable, because it creates a record. A simple sentence is sufficient: “Please identify the specific provision in my policy that requires me to obtain three contractor estimates before my claim can be processed.”

The adjuster will not be able to identify this provision because it does not exist. The response will typically be one of several variations: a vague reference to “company procedure,” a claim that it is “standard practice,” or silence. None of these is a policy provision.

Step 2: Clarify the Distinction Between Policy Duties and Carrier Preferences

If the adjuster responds with “company procedure” or “standard practice,” make the distinction clear. Your obligations as a policyholder are defined by the policy contract, not by the carrier's internal procedures. You can state this plainly: “I understand that your company may have internal guidelines that suggest requesting multiple bids. However, my obligations are defined by the insurance contract, and I have reviewed the Duties After Loss section of my policy. No provision requires me to obtain multiple contractor estimates. I have submitted a detailed estimate from my licensed contractor. Please let me know if you need any additional information about the scope or pricing of that estimate.”

Step 3: Cite the Regulatory Framework

If the carrier persists, reference the applicable regulations. Under the California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations (10 CCR § 2695.7), the carrier has an affirmative duty to conduct a thorough, fair, and objective investigation. If the carrier disagrees with your contractor's estimate, the carrier should conduct its own investigation — inspect the property, prepare its own estimate, retain its own expert. The carrier cannot satisfy its investigation obligation by requiring you to do the investigating.

You might write: “If you believe my contractor's estimate does not accurately reflect the cost to repair the damage, please conduct your own investigation as required by 10 CCR Section 2695.7 and provide me with your own estimate identifying the specific line items you dispute and the basis for your disagreement. I will be happy to discuss any specific line-item differences between your estimate and my contractor's.”

Step 4: Document Everything

Every time an adjuster requests three bids — whether in person, on the phone, or in writing — document it. Note the date, the time, the name of the person who made the request, and what was said. If the request was verbal, follow up with an email confirming: “Per our conversation today, you indicated that I need to obtain three contractor bids before my claim can move forward. Please confirm this requirement in writing and identify the policy provision or legal authority that supports it.”

This documentation matters because if the claim later becomes a dispute, the carrier's demand for three bids — and the delay it caused — becomes evidence of unreasonable claims handling. A pattern of imposing requirements that do not exist in the policy is exactly the kind of conduct that the Fair Claims regulations are designed to prevent.

Step 5: Do Not Comply Unless You Choose To

You are not obligated to obtain three bids. You may choose to, if you believe it serves your interests — perhaps you want to compare contractors for your own reasons. But you should make that decision based on your own judgment, not because the carrier told you it was required. If you do obtain additional estimates, understand that the carrier will use whichever number is lowest. If you are confident in your contractor's scope and pricing, you may be better served by declining the request and insisting that the carrier conduct its own investigation.

What the Carrier Should Be Doing Instead

When a policyholder submits a contractor's estimate and the carrier believes the price is too high, the appropriate response is not “go get three bids.” The appropriate response is for the carrier to do its job.

• Inspect the property— the carrier should send a qualified adjuster or inspector to verify the scope of damage. If the carrier has not physically inspected the property, the carrier has no basis to dispute any estimate.
• Prepare its own estimate— the carrier should use its own estimating tools — Xactimate, or otherwise — to develop its own scope and pricing. That estimate should be provided to the policyholder in full, not summarized on a check stub.
• Identify specific disagreements— if the carrier's estimate differs from the policyholder's contractor's estimate, the carrier should identify the specific line items in dispute and explain the basis for each disagreement. “Your contractor is too expensive” is not a line-item disagreement. It is a conclusion without analysis.
• Engage in good-faith negotiation— the carrier should discuss the disputed items with the policyholder or the policyholder's representative. If the dispute is about pricing, the carrier should provide market data supporting its position. If the dispute is about scope, the carrier should explain which items it believes are unnecessary and why.
• Invoke appraisal if appropriate— if the parties cannot agree on the amount of loss, most policies contain an appraisal provision that allows either party to submit the dispute to a neutral process. That process is designed exactly for this situation. The carrier does not need three bids to trigger appraisal.

The “Three Bids” Demand and Underpayment

It is worth connecting the three-bid demand to its intended result. When the carrier pays the lowest of three bids, the policyholder receives less than the cost of the repair as estimated by the contractor who actually inspected the property and understands the work required. The gap between the lowest bid and the accurate bid comes directly from the policyholder's pocket — or, more commonly, the repair simply does not get done properly.

The policyholder hires the cheapest contractor because that is all the insurance will cover. The cheapest contractor cuts corners, omits necessary work, uses inferior materials, or produces results that do not match the pre-loss condition. The policyholder lives with a repair that falls short of what the policy promised. The carrier has saved the difference between the proper repair cost and the cheapest bid. This is not a theoretical concern. It is the daily reality of insurance claims handling, and the three-bid process is one of the mechanisms that produces it.

When a Public Adjuster or Attorney Is Involved

The three-bid demand is most effective against unrepresented policyholders — people who do not know that the requirement is fictitious and do not have anyone to advise them otherwise. When a policyholder is represented by a licensed public adjuster or an attorney, the dynamic changes immediately.

A public adjuster will prepare their own estimate — typically using the same Xactimate software the carrier uses — and will negotiate the scope and pricing on the policyholder's behalf. The public adjuster has no reason to obtain three bids because the public adjuster understands that the obligation does not exist. When the carrier makes the demand, the public adjuster responds with the regulatory and contractual analysis described above.

An attorney will evaluate the demand in the context of the carrier's overall claims handling conduct. If the carrier is using the three-bid request as a delay tactic, as a mechanism for paying less than what is owed, or as a way to steer the policyholder toward a preferred vendor, the attorney will recognize those patterns and respond accordingly. In litigation, the carrier's three-bid demand — and the delay and underpayment it facilitated — can become evidence of unreasonable claims handling practices.

The Regulatory Framework: What California Law Actually Requires

California has one of the most comprehensive sets of claims handling regulations in the country. The Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations (10 CCR §§ 2695.1–2695.14) establish detailed requirements for how carriers must handle claims. Several provisions are directly relevant to the three-bid demand.

The Duty to Investigate (10 CCR § 2695.7(d))

The regulations require every insurer to conduct and diligently pursue a thorough, fair, and objective investigation sufficient to determine whether the claim is valid and, if so, the amount owed. This duty belongs to the insurer. The insurer cannot delegate it to the policyholder by demanding that the policyholder gather competing estimates.

The Prohibition on Unreasonable Delays (10 CCR § 2695.5(e))

The regulations prohibit insurers from imposing requirements on policyholders that are not authorized by the policy or by law, when those requirements have the effect of delaying the resolution of the claim. A demand for three bids that is not supported by any policy provision is precisely this kind of unauthorized requirement.

The Prohibition on Lowballing (Insurance Code § 790.03(h)(5))

California Insurance Code Section 790.03(h)(5) makes it an unfair claims settlement practice to fail to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after the claim has been fully investigated. If the carrier uses the three-bid process to delay investigation — waiting for the policyholder to produce numbers rather than conducting its own analysis — the carrier may be violating this provision.

Section 790.03(h)(11) prohibits the knowing misrepresentation of pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. When an adjuster tells a policyholder that they are “required” to provide three bids, and no such requirement exists in the policy, the adjuster is misrepresenting the policyholder's contractual obligations. Whether that misrepresentation is knowing or merely negligent, it creates a regulatory problem for the carrier.

What Policyholders Should Know

If you take nothing else from this article, take this:

• You are not required to provide three bids. No California statute, regulation, or standard policy provision imposes this obligation. If a carrier demands three bids, ask them to identify the specific authority for the demand. They will not be able to.
• You have the right to choose your own contractor.The carrier may disagree with your contractor's pricing, but the carrier cannot force you to use a different contractor. Your right to choose is fundamental.
• If the carrier disagrees with your estimate, it is the carrier's job to investigate. The carrier must prepare its own estimate, identify specific line-item disagreements, and support its position with evidence. The carrier cannot outsource this work to you.
• Document every demand for three bids. The demand itself may be evidence of unreasonable claims handling. Record the date, the person, and what was said. Follow up in writing.
• The three-bid demand is a pricing strategy, not a claims requirement. It is designed to generate a lower number the carrier can use to reduce its payment. Understanding this purpose is the first step to countering it.

A Final Observation

The persistence of the three-bid myth reveals something instructive about how insurance claims work in practice. The carrier has enormous informational and procedural advantages over the typical policyholder. The carrier knows the policy language. The carrier knows the regulations. The carrier knows what it is required to do and what the policyholder is required to do. When the carrier tells a policyholder to go get three bids, the carrier knows — or should know — that no such requirement exists.

The policyholder, on the other hand, has typically never filed an insurance claim before. The policyholder does not know what the policy says about duties after loss. The policyholder does not know the difference between a policy provision and an internal carrier guideline. The policyholder trusts that the adjuster is telling them the truth about what is required. When the adjuster says “we need three bids,” the policyholder hears a rule, not a request.

That informational asymmetry is what makes the three-bid myth so effective — and so important to debunk. Once a policyholder understands that this is a carrier preference dressed as a policy requirement, the dynamic shifts. The policyholder can respond appropriately: by asking for the contractual basis, by insisting on the carrier's investigative duty, and by refusing to accept an obligation that does not exist.

Your policy is a contract. Your obligations under that contract are defined by the contract's terms. No adjuster, no claims examiner, and no carrier “standard procedure” can add requirements that the contract does not contain. If the carrier wants to know what the repair costs, the carrier should do what the law requires: conduct its own thorough, fair, and objective investigation. That is the carrier's job. Getting three bids is not yours.