My recent article, “Who Is ITEL Total Price Really Good For?” asked whether fulfillment-backed pricing will produce accurate claims and quality restorations or merely help insurers pay less than Xactimate pricing. I said questions were not conclusions and invited people throughout the claims industry to provide information. The invitation is producing results.

I have now received a nine-page document titled “Standard Operating Procedure—Trueline Material Pricing Program.” It appears to be an internal claims document for several Auto Club Group insurance entities, including ACIA, MEEMIC, Carolinas, and ACICF. It says it was updated August 21, 2026, and became effective August 27, 2026.

I have not independently authenticated the document or spoken with its authors. TrueLine, Accuserve, Auto Club Group, Verisk, and ITEL are invited to respond. If accurate, however, it answers several questions raised in my first article and should concern policyholders and restoration contractors.

The most important admission is straightforward. The SOP says TrueLine pricing is “always formula-based”: take the current Xactimate price for a material component and subtract a fixed category discount percentage.

It says TrueLine pricing cannot exceed current Xactimate pricing because doing so is “structurally impossible.” The price is not sometimes lower because TrueLine independently discovered a better local price. It is mathematically required to be lower.

Xactimate is apparently reliable enough to establish the ceiling, but too generous to establish the payment. The SOP calls this “market-based, guaranteed pricing.” But where is the market analysis proving that every covered Xactimate component is overstated by the selected percentage? A fixed discount does not become a market price merely because somebody negotiated sufficient purchasing volume to offer it.

A restoration contractor prices a particular project. The contractor procures materials, coordinates deliveries and trades, handles shortages and returns, protects warranties, and remains responsible when something goes wrong. A bundle of drywall in the driveway is not a finished room any more than shingles are a completed roof.

The insurer’s benefits are concrete. Every included TrueLine price is designed to be lower than the current Xactimate component price. The insurer can expect fewer supplements based on contractor costs, centralized purchasing leverage, documented adjuster compliance, more predictable reserves, and greater control over indemnity spending.

The program is difficult for adjusters to avoid. The SOP directs them to apply TrueLine pricing on all claims containing eligible items. Opting out is described as the exception and is generally limited to small repairs, highly specialized materials, or extremely remote locations. The adjuster must document the bypass.

If an adjuster believes the price is wrong, the SOP says to contact a manager rather than override it. This raises questions about adjuster authority, performance measurements, override tracking, and pressure to follow the discounted number. It seems similar to State Farm’s recently revealed playbook regarding managers driving down payments by removing field adjuster approval.

The most troubling instruction concerns contractors and policyholders. The SOP says contractors remain free to use preferred suppliers, then takes much of the substance from that supposed freedom. If the contractor’s supplier charges more for the same material, the SOP says “no additional consideration or change to the material pricing in the estimate is warranted” because the material allegedly could have been purchased through TrueLine.

The contractor choice is limited in the same sense that a restaurant lets you order anything on the menu but will pay only for the cheapest entrée. The contractor can select another supplier, but the contractor or policyholder must absorb the difference. The practical message is obviously to use the insurer-supported fulfillment source, work for less, or ask the policyholder to pay the shortfall.

TrueLine is a brand of Accuserve Solutions, not a separate company. Accuserve does far more than arrange deliveries. Its public materials describe a managed repair platform that maintains contractor networks, assists with estimating and carrier requirements, performs technical reviews, manages repairs, and offers supply-chain services. Accuserve tells insurers that its “supply chain advantages” allow insurance partners and homeowners to pay fair market prices.

The SOP says TrueLine billing occurs “on the back end.” It does not disclose who pays Accuserve, how much it receives, or whether rebates, purchasing spreads, or incentives reward greater Xactimate reductions. Those are obvious questions when one company may influence pricing, fulfillment, contractors, estimate review, and managed repairs.

TrueLine and Accuserve potentially benefit from fulfillment volume, deeper insurer relationships, claims data, and increased control over the restoration ecosystem. Their exact financial benefit remains undisclosed.

Some contractors in Accuserve’s network may receive assignments, purchasing assistance, simplified administration, and continuing insurance work. Independent contractors may lose supplier autonomy, procurement compensation, established vendor relationships, and supplements for documented material costs. They may also be expected to warranty products supplied through a system they did not choose.

The policyholder may benefit if the product is genuinely like kind and quality, available, timely delivered without hidden costs, acceptable to a reputable contractor, compatible, and supported when something fails. A real guarantee could reduce disputes and delays.

But the SOP provides no meaningful remedy for policyholders when materials are late, damaged, short, mismatched, nonreturnable, inadequately warranted, or rejected by the contractor responsible for the completed restoration. The guarantee lasts 60 days from the initial estimate. What if adjustment delays, permits, mortgage approvals, inspections, or trade scheduling prevent timely work? Who pays when the price expires through no fault of the policyholder?

The SOP treats theoretical availability through TrueLine as sufficient grounds for refusing a contractor’s higher documented price. That does not prove the material can practically complete a particular restoration.

Another provision deserves scrutiny. The document says earlier line-item notes contained “pricing-source tokens” that were removed. The final note now tells the contractor or policyholder only to contact TrueLine for fulfillment.

Verisk’s documentation states that Xactimate discount notes can display the original price, the discounted price, and the price difference. Why were those details removed? Who requested it? Why should the contractor and policyholder not see exactly how much was subtracted? Whatever the reason, the result is less transparency.

The SOP also reveals that TrueLine and ITEL can operate together. TrueLine is the default flooring source, while ITEL flooring pricing is reserved for unresolved quality or identification disputes. ITEL Asphalt Shingle Pricing and Vinyl Siding Pricing remain required for primary shingles and siding panels, while TrueLine prices roofing and siding accessories. A policyholder’s estimate can therefore become a patchwork of third-party pricing programs embedded within Xactimate and influencing different portions of the loss.

The document does not prove that the newly announced ITEL Total Price uses the same fixed-discount formula. ITEL describes itself as a neutral intermediary providing independent, localized, data-driven pricing. Nearmap says ITEL Total Price uses information from manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, retailers, and distributors.

But the TrueLine SOP proves my earlier questions are not academic. The property insurance claims industry can take Xactimate prices, apply systematic discounts, require adjuster participation, track bypasses, and use theoretical availability to answer contractor supplements. Now we need to know how widely this is happening.

I am publicly requesting earlier SOPs, discount percentages, Xactimate instructions, training materials, override guidelines, performance measurements, and communications regarding the removal of the original price and price-difference information.

I am asking contractors and policyholders for estimates showing original Xactimate and substituted TrueLine or ITEL prices. I want examples of successful fulfillment, delays, incorrect or unavailable products, expired guarantees, rejected supplements, warranty problems, and cases where these programs increased rather than decreased payment.

I am especially interested in the backend economics. Who pays these companies? Are there rebates, purchasing spreads, volume incentives, transaction fees, or promised indemnity reductions? Who keeps the savings, and who bears the loss when fulfillment fails?

This investigation is new, and I am still learning. If these programs consistently provide equivalent materials, fair contractor compensation, quality repairs, and meaningful policyholder benefits, the evidence should show it. If they use Xactimate as a ceiling and a fixed discount as the payment, policyholders and insurance regulators deserve to know that too.

Adjusters, contractors, suppliers, claims executives, and others with internal documents or firsthand knowledge are invited to contact me. Please send the manuals, emails, estimates, reports, guarantees, pricing schedules, and claim experiences that can reveal what is really happening. If insurance companies and these vendors are acting in good faith, what is the big secret?

Sunshine remains an excellent claims-handling disinfectant.

Thought For The Day

“As a neutral party, itel provides independent, data-driven analysis.”
—itel