Sometimes a court opinion says more about professional discipline than it does about the law. Tower Crossing Condominium Association v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company, 1 is one of those cases. The court never reached the coverage issues. It didn’t debate whether hail hit the roofs or how much damage was owed. Instead, the entire case fell apart because of one procedural misstep. The case was lost because a proof of loss wasn’t truly sworn.
After a July 2019 hailstorm, Tower Crossing’s public adjuster prepared a Proof of Loss showing $2.9 million in damage. The association’s president, Kenneth Freedman, signed it in the presence of a notary. Later, after questioning whether that figure was adequate, new construction figures bumped the estimate to $4.3 million. Rather than re-executing the document, the team preparing the proof simply copied the old, notarized signature page and attached it to the revised Proof of Loss.
Big mistake.
When litigation followed, Affiliated FM pointed out the obvious. The notary never witnessed or swore the president to that new $4.3 million statement. The insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Proof of Loss was a legal nullity because it was unsworn, invalid, and therefore incapable of tolling the policy’s two-year suit limitation.
Judge Hunt agreed. Under Illinois law, a “sworn” Proof of Loss means notarized. A notarization can’t be transplanted from one document to another. Because the $4.3 million form wasn’t properly sworn, the limitation clock never stopped. The lawsuit was lost before it began.
Tower Crossing lost not because of coverage facts, but because a notary seal was reused.
The judge’s reasoning was straightforward:
- The policy explicitly required a “signed and sworn” Proof of Loss.
- “Sworn” means given under oath, similar to an affidavit, and not merely signed.
- A reused notary page is not an oath at all; it defeats the purpose of having a neutral witness.
- Without a valid Proof of Loss, there was no tolling under Section 143.1 of the Illinois Insurance Code, so the case was untimely.
The court cited case precedent and Black’s Law Dictionary to emphasize that a “sworn” document must involve a notary or other officer authorized to administer oaths. The reattached page, the judge wrote, did not transform the revised Proof of Loss into a valid sworn statement. Instead, it was simply a piece of paper pretending to be one.
The Lesson for Public Adjusters
Public adjusters live in the world between the paperwork and the promise of coverage. You may know the numbers, but if the process isn’t executed correctly, none of it matters.
This case drives home the rule that every Sworn Proof of Loss must be:
Signed, Sworn, and Sealed —Each Time.
If a client changes figures, even by a few dollars, that document must be:
- Reprinted or reissued.
- Re-signed by the insured.
- Re-notarized with the notary witnessing that exact signature.
No shortcuts. No “reuse.” No digital cut-and-paste.
A notarization isn’t decoration. It’s the legal ceremony that gives the statement force. The oath protects everyone, including the insurer, the policyholder, and the credibility of the public adjuster who stands behind the claim.
My recent speech about the history of proofs of loss discussed this formal process, which has been in place for centuries. Every state is a little different about what is required for a document to be “sworn.” But one lesson from this case is that one cannot swear to something before it is prepared.
Professional Integrity Matters
I’ve long said that public adjusters are the unsung professionals of the policyholder world. But with that role comes responsibility. Judges expect precision and honesty, especially with documents sworn under oath. Tower Crossing’s team may not have intended to deceive, yet their procedural shortcut undid years of work and likely hundreds of thousands in recoverable value.
A single reused seal, rather than 10 minutes more of work, cost them their day in court.
Thought for the Day
“Integrity has no need of rules.”
— Albert Camus
1 Tower Crossing Condo. Assoc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 21-CV-06228 (N.D. Ill Nov. 3, 2025). (See also, Memorandum in Support of Affiliated FM Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts)