Insurance lawyers hear the term “lowballing” all the time. Public adjusters say carriers are lowballing claims. Policyholders complain that insurers are lowballing estimates. Defense lawyers cringe when the word appears in a brief because it sounds accusatory before the first witness is ever sworn. But where did the term “lowballing” actually come from?

This question came to my mind while reading a recent Washington insurance case involving Safeco. In Gonzales v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, 1 the policyholder alleged that Safeco engaged in “severe lowballing” by internally valuing a claim at hundreds of thousands of dollars while issuing a payment dramatically below those internal numbers. The policyholder’s brief used the term repeatedly and argued that the insurer’s own documents showed a “smoking gun” demonstrating the practice.

The court ultimately denied summary judgment to both sides, ruling that factual disputes remained about whether Safeco’s payment was an unreasonable “lowball” offer or merely part of a legitimate valuation dispute. But the briefing raised a fascinating side issue for word nerds, trial lawyers, and insurance professionals alike: What exactly is “lowballing,” and where did the term originate?

The term “lowball” was not born in the insurance industry. It evolved from older American slang. Historians tracing language through the Oxford English Dictionary and other etymological sources note that “highball” and “lowball” likely originated from railroad signaling in the nineteenth century. A raised ball signaled clear tracks and permission to proceed at speed and was called a “highball.” A lowered ball meant caution or stop, and was called a “low ball.”

The phrase escaped the tracks and entered American culture. By the mid-twentieth century, “lowball” became associated with negotiations, bargaining, and intentionally low offers. Merriam-Webster now defines “lowball” as making “a deceptively low offer” or giving “a markedly or unfairly low estimate.” That definition sounds eerily familiar to anybody practicing insurance bad faith law.

What I find interesting is that the word itself carries moral judgment. Nobody accuses another party of “lowballing” when they simply disagree about value in good faith. The term implies something more. It suggests the offer was not merely wrong, but unfairly, strategically, or knowingly below what should have been paid.

The distinction matters in insurance law. Every negotiation involves different opinions about value. Contractors differ. Experts differ. Adjusters differ. Lawyers certainly differ. But lowballing allegations typically arise when the evidence suggests the insurer knew that its payment, offer to settle, or estimate was disconnected from the actual scope or value of damage.

In the Gonzales case, the policyholder argued precisely that point. According to the motion, Safeco’s internal “Tech Review” allegedly set dwelling exposure at over $238,000 while the actual estimate sent to the insured was roughly $65,000. The policyholder argued that this disparity demonstrated improper claim handling. Safeco argued it was engaged in a reasoned overlap analysis involving two separate water losses. Judge Jones ruled that a jury would have to sort it out.

The opinion itself is worth reading because it discusses an important principle recognized in Washington and many other jurisdictions that a carrier can violate bad faith statutes through an unreasonably low payment even when coverage is technically accepted. The court cited prior Washington decisions recognizing that an insurer may effectively deny benefits by paying only a “paltry amount” not supported by a reasonable investigation.

For decades, policyholders have argued that some insurers intentionally start claims negotiations with artificially low estimates, hoping desperate insureds will accept them. After catastrophes, families often need immediate money for repairs, temporary housing, or business survival. A low initial estimate can place enormous economic pressure on somebody already suffering significant loss.

The phrase “lowballing” persists because it resonates emotionally and visually. Everybody understands what it means instinctively, even if the exact legal definition remains fuzzy.

One interesting aspect of modern language research is how accessible word origins have become. Years ago, researching etymology meant a trip to a law library or university collection. Today, lawyers, judges, and curious readers can search the Oxford English Dictionary online, use Merriam-Webster, or even review collaborative linguistic resources like Wiktionary to trace the evolution of words and phrases.

Words matter in litigation and during the adjustment of claims. The language lawyers choose often frames how judges and juries perceive disputes before evidence is ever weighed. Calling an offer a “valuation dispute” sounds far different from calling it “lowballing,” even when the facts may overlap. We should understand and appreciate the history and emotional force those words carry.

Perhaps that is why “lowballing” remains such a powerful accusation in the insurance world. The phrase does not merely imply disagreement. It suggests a game being played with somebody else’s money during one of the most difficult moments of their life.

Thought For The Day

“Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”
— Rudyard Kipling

1 Gonzales v. Safeco Ins. Co. Of America, No. 2:24-cv-01832 (W.D. Wash. May 22, 2026).