---
title: "Draft expert instructions for a loss assessor, engineer or actuary"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/insurance-law/draft-expert-instructions-for-a-loss-assessor-engineer-or-actuary"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A22-T1-R7"
practice_area: "Insurance Law"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Draft expert instructions for a loss assessor, engineer or actuary

> Take the questions and the assumed facts the lawyer has settled and set them out in a working table for the lawyer's own use, with the policy clause and the claim-file page beside each one, quoted from the file rather…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/insurance-law/draft-expert-instructions-for-a-loss-assessor-engineer-or-actuary  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Insurance Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/insurance-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | Take the questions and the assumed facts the lawyer has settled and set them out in a working table for the lawyer's own use, with the policy clause and the claim-file page beside each one, quoted from the file rather than composed, and list the source material the assessor, engineer or actuary has not yet been given. The lawyer writes the letter of instruction and any schedule that goes out with it. On the draft report, table the expert's assumptions and opinions against the letter as sent, with page cites, and flag anything outside the instructed scope, any question in the letter the report does not answer, and any departure from the expert code that applies. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer writes the letter of instruction and settles every assumed fact in it. Check each question against the coverage issue actually in dispute, confirm each assumed fact has a source in the claim file, and treat the instructions as material that will be read by others: serving the report and relying on it will ordinarily waive privilege over the instructions and over the material the expert referred to or relied on in forming the opinion, so treat the letter as material the other side and the court will see; a report obtained and never served, or served and not relied on, does not by itself waive privilege in the instructions. The expert's duty is to the court, so confirm which expert code applies in the forum, or applies by the terms of the brief where the matter is not yet in court, before relying on the tool's scope and code flags. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
2. Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
3. Check the specialist’s assumptions, qualifications and limits. Obtain the relevant expert or specialist review before relying on a technical conclusion.
4. Preserve original files and relevant metadata. Document provenance and handling, and seek forensic review where authenticity needs to be resolved.
5. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
6. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/insurance-law/draft-expert-instructions-for-a-loss-assessor-engineer-or-actuary/united-states.md) | Red |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*