The total-loss auto file is the place where subrogation, salvage, and UM/UIM stacking decisions all converge in the first 72 hours after FNOL, and the carrier that gets the triage wrong loses real money - either by waiving a $14,000 third-party recovery before the statute clock started, by sending a $19,400 ACV check on a vehicle worth $22,800 after rebuild, or by missing the stacking analysis that turns a $25,000 UM limit into a $75,000 layered recovery the insured was entitled to. The Tractable 2020 Toyota Highlander scenario - third-party at-fault rear-end collision, ACV $19,400, loan payoff $22,800, claimant carries $50K BI / $25K UIM stacking-permitted state - is the canonical worked example because it exposes the three decisions in sequence: pursue subrogation against the at-fault driver's $50K BI limit, retain vs. release salvage to Copart at the $4,200 advertised salvage value, and trigger the insured's own UIM stacking analysis when the third-party limits do not make the insured whole. AI does the triage in 18-25 minutes - third-party liability assessment, jurisdictional comparative-negligence math, statute-of-limitations calendaring, salvage decision matrix, and UM/UIM stacking exhibit. The adjuster owns the override calls and the customer conversation. This lesson is the structured workflow that walks the file through all three decisions cleanly.

The 2020 Highlander on the Tow Truck

The file lands at 8:47 a.m. on a Wednesday. Insured Mary Chen, age 42, drives a 2020 Toyota Highlander Limited with 47,800 miles, rear-ended at a red light on I-285 in Cobb County, Georgia by a Ford F-150 carrying $50,000 bodily injury / $50,000 property damage limits with State Farm. Chen is treating for whiplash and a cervical strain; ER discharge with prescription muscle relaxants, three weeks of PT scheduled, medical specials currently $4,800. The Highlander's frame is bent; the body shop estimate is $24,600 plus a sublet to align the frame. Tractable's photo-AI estimate, fed the 22 photos the adjuster requested at FNOL, returns total-loss determination with ACV (actual cash value) $19,400 based on KBB and J.D. Power data corrected for mileage and condition. Chen's loan balance with Toyota Financial is $22,800. Chen carries $100K/$300K BI on the Highlander's policy plus $25,000 stacked UIM (Georgia is a stacking-permitted state with reduction). Salvage value advertised at Copart is $4,200; retain-and-rebuild option estimated by an independent body shop at $13,400 with a rebuilt-title disclosure required at next sale.

The file has three decisions that interlock. First, the subrogation decision: does the carrier pursue the at-fault driver's $50K BI limit and the $50K PD limit for the property damage, what is the comparative-negligence posture, and what is the statute clock in Georgia (two years on auto property damage and personal injury, runs from the date of loss)? Second, the salvage decision: send the Highlander to Copart at $4,200 (net realization to the carrier after auction fees and title processing roughly $3,600), or release to the insured at $4,200 credit and let her retain-and-rebuild at the $13,400 estimate, taking a rebuilt-title hit on resale value? Third, the UM/UIM stacking decision: with the third-party BI limit at $50K and Chen's medicals projected to settle in the $35K-$75K range (whiplash with PT, no surgery indicated), does the insured's $25K stacked UIM trigger, and what is the layered recovery analysis the carrier owes the insured under Georgia's UIM statute and the policy?

The AI Pulls the Triage Data in 25 Minutes

The AI workflow runs three parallel triages on the file. The subrogation triage pulls (a) the at-fault driver's liability limits from the police report and the ClaimSearch report, (b) the Georgia comparative-negligence rule (modified comparative with 50% bar - at-fault driver bears liability up to plaintiff's contribution percentage, with full bar at 50%+ plaintiff fault), (c) the statute-of-limitations calendar (Georgia OCGA §9-3-33 for personal injury and §9-3-32 for property damage, both two years from loss), (d) the State Farm prior-claim patterns the carrier has on similar fact patterns at this venue (typical settlement timing 6-14 months from demand, typical demand-to-settlement ratio 0.62-0.78 on whiplash claims at clear-liability rear-end facts), and (e) the joint-and-several posture under Georgia law (limited to defendants found 50%+ at fault). The output is a one-page subrogation-potential triage memo with go/no-go recommendation and timeline.

The salvage triage pulls (a) Copart's current advertised salvage value at $4,200 with auction fees and title-processing costs producing net to carrier $3,600, (b) the retain-and-rebuild estimate at $13,400 from the independent body shop with the rebuilt-title disclosure cost (typical resale-value haircut 25-35% on a rebuilt-title Toyota), (c) the loan-balance gap analysis ($22,800 loan vs. $19,400 ACV = $3,400 gap that ACV-plus-loan-coverage may or may not bridge depending on policy), and (d) the customer-preference signal from the insured intake call ("I love this car and would consider retaining it"). The output is a salvage decision matrix with three options: Copart at $3,600 net, release to insured at $4,200 credit, or insurer-retain-and-rebuild as a sublet program if the carrier operates one.

The UM/UIM stacking triage pulls (a) the policy's UIM coverage at $25K stacked across two scheduled vehicles on Chen's policy (Georgia stacking-permitted), (b) Georgia UIM statute OCGA §33-7-11 requiring add-on coverage where stacking selected at policy inception, (c) the reduction-vs-add-on analysis (reduction state UIM offsets by third-party limits paid; add-on UIM stacks on top - Georgia is reduction by default with add-on option at higher premium, and the carrier's records show Chen selected add-on at the 2024 renewal), (d) the layered-recovery math: $50K third-party BI + $25K UIM stacked per vehicle × 2 vehicles = $100K total layered limit available before any deductibles or offsets, and (e) the policy-form citation for the stacking endorsement (the carrier's ISO endorsement edition). The output is a UM/UIM stacking exhibit that documents the analysis the insured is owed in writing.

The Subrogation Go / No-Go and the Comparative-Negligence Math

The subrogation decision on a clear-liability rear-end at a red light is typically straightforward - at-fault driver bears full liability, subrogation pursues the BI and PD limits, expected recovery sits at 70-90% of limits if claims process cleanly. The complications are in the comparative-negligence math when liability is contested. Georgia's modified comparative-negligence rule (50% bar) means if the at-fault driver's insurer alleges any plaintiff fault - even 10% or 20% - the recovery on each line is reduced by the plaintiff's share, and at 50%+ plaintiff fault, recovery is barred. The AI workflow pulls Georgia case-law citations (OCGA §51-12-33 and the case-law tree) and computes the recovery scenarios: at 0% plaintiff fault, expected recovery on $50K BI and $50K PD is approximately $35K-$45K BI portion and $24,600 PD portion (the body shop estimate) for $59,600-$69,600 total expected recovery; at 20% plaintiff fault, the same recovery reduces to $47,700-$55,700; at 49% plaintiff fault, the recovery is approximately $30K total with policy-limit pressure.

The statute calendar is non-negotiable. Georgia OCGA §9-3-33 (two-year PI) and §9-3-32 (two-year property damage) both run from the date of loss. The subrogation team has 24 months to file suit or settle. The AI calendars the date, the 12-month checkpoint (default demand-letter deadline if no settlement progress), the 18-month checkpoint (filing-preparation deadline), and the 22-month hard stop. Missing the statute is the single highest-frequency subrogation E&O exposure in mid-market carrier operations; the calendar discipline is the workflow's protection.

The Salvage Decision Matrix

The salvage decision turns on three variables: net realization to the carrier, customer-relationship value, and operational complexity. Copart at $3,600 net is the simplest path - the salvage vendor takes the car, the carrier books the recovery, and the file closes on the property-damage line in 30-45 days. Release to insured at $4,200 credit lets the insured retain-and-rebuild; the credit applies to the ACV payment ($19,400 ACV − $4,200 salvage credit = $15,200 cash to insured plus the salvage Highlander), which leaves the insured with a $7,600 gap against the $22,800 loan balance that the loan-coverage endorsement may bridge or that the insured eats. Insurer-retain-and-rebuild (if the carrier runs a sublet rebuild program) takes the Highlander, sends it through the carrier's rebuild vendor, sells it at a marked-up post-rebuild value (typically $14K-$16K against the $13,400 rebuild cost), and books a net positive recovery. The decision matrix has to compute each path's economics and surface the customer-preference signal.

For Chen, the customer-preference signal - "I love this car and would consider retaining it" - moves the decision toward release-to-insured. The carrier's loan-coverage endorsement (if Chen carries it) bridges the $3,400 ACV-to-loan gap; without it, Chen eats the gap. The retain-and-rebuild path leaves Chen in her preferred vehicle with rebuilt title disclosure and a future-resale haircut; the Copart path closes the file cleanly and pays Chen $19,400 cash less the loan payoff to Toyota Financial directly. The AI surfaces the three paths with computed economics; the adjuster owns the conversation with Chen and the final decision based on what Chen actually values.

The UM/UIM Stacking Exhibit the Insured Is Owed

The UM/UIM stacking analysis is the highest-stakes item in the file because it is the carrier's duty to the insured (first-party coverage analysis), not a recovery from a third party. Under Georgia law and the carrier's policy, the carrier owes the insured a written analysis of available UM/UIM coverage when the insured's bodily injury settlement exceeds or approaches the third-party limits. Chen's medicals at $4,800 paid-to-date with PT scheduled project to settle in the $35K-$75K range based on the segment data (whiplash with cervical strain, no surgery, three weeks of PT, no permanent impairment indicated). At the upper end of the range ($75K), the $50K third-party BI limit is exhausted and the UIM coverage triggers. Chen's UIM at $25K stacked across two scheduled vehicles on her policy with add-on (not reduction) provides $50K of UIM coverage layered on top of the $50K third-party limit, producing a $100K total available recovery.

The stacking exhibit the AI drafts (and the adjuster reviews and adopts) reads: "Insured carries $25,000 UM/UIM coverage per the policy declarations, stacked across two scheduled vehicles per the stacking selection at the 2024 renewal, on an add-on basis per the elected endorsement. Pursuant to OCGA §33-7-11, the UIM coverage is available where the insured's bodily injury recovery from the at-fault driver does not fully indemnify the insured. Layered recovery analysis: third-party BI $50,000 limit + $25,000 × 2 vehicles UIM stacked add-on = $100,000 total available. Insured's bodily-injury settlement projected at $35,000-$75,000 based on current medicals and treatment trajectory. UIM trigger is conditional on third-party settlement at or near the $50,000 BI limit; if settlement is below limit, UIM does not trigger. The carrier will (a) negotiate the third-party BI recovery first, (b) document the third-party settlement amount, and (c) issue the UIM layer to the insured if the third-party recovery does not fully indemnify. Insured is encouraged to consult independent counsel regarding the stacking and recovery analysis." The exhibit is sent to the insured with the file's first-touch contact and refreshed at major file milestones.

When Stacking States, Stacking Bans, and Policy Variation Diverge

Georgia is one of approximately 30 states that permit UM/UIM stacking by policy election. The other 20-ish states either ban stacking outright (Pennsylvania has a complex election regime with a Steinmark waiver requirement; Florida bans stacking on policies issued after 2003 with a written rejection requirement), or restrict it to specific policy structures. The AI workflow loads a state-specific UM/UIM matrix at the file level - Georgia OCGA §33-7-11, Florida F.S. §627.727, Pennsylvania 75 Pa.C.S. §1738, California CIC §11580.2, Texas TCRP §1952, New York NYIL §3420 - and applies the rule that controls the insured's policy situs. A Florida insured on a 2024 policy with no written stacking-rejection waiver has stacking deemed waived; a Pennsylvania insured without a Steinmark waiver has reduction UM/UIM by default; a New York insured has supplementary uninsured-motorist coverage (SUM) at the policy level. The matrix changes the layered-recovery math materially.

The policy-form citation is non-negotiable. The carrier's policy declarations show the UM/UIM coverage limit, the stacking election, and the add-on-vs-reduction selection; the body of the policy (the ISO PP 04 49 or its carrier-specific equivalent) carries the controlling language. The AI cites the form by edition date and the specific endorsement; the adjuster verifies the citation against the policy on file. Mis-cited forms or mis-applied stacking matrices are the second-most-common UM/UIM E&O exposure (after missed statute deadlines).

The Customer Conversation the Adjuster Owns

The three decisions land in a single conversation with Chen. The conversation has four moves. First, the total-loss explanation: the Highlander is a total loss at the body-shop estimate; ACV is $19,400 per the Tractable photo-AI valuation with KBB and J.D. Power corroboration. Second, the salvage choice: Chen can take the Copart path (carrier gets $3,600 net, Chen gets $19,400 cash less loan payoff direct to Toyota Financial), or the retain-and-rebuild path (Chen gets $15,200 cash plus the salvage vehicle and a $13,400 rebuild estimate from an independent shop, with rebuilt-title disclosure required at next sale and a 25-35% resale haircut). Third, the subrogation explanation: the carrier will pursue the at-fault driver's $50K BI and $50K PD limits and Chen does not need to do anything to support the property-damage subrogation (the carrier handles it directly); Chen's BI claim against the at-fault driver is Chen's separate claim and the carrier will coordinate timing but Chen may want independent counsel for BI. Fourth, the UIM stacking layer: the carrier owes Chen a written stacking analysis; the exhibit explains the $100K total layered limit and the conditional UIM trigger if third-party recovery does not fully indemnify Chen's medicals and other damages.

The adjuster is not selling Chen on a particular path; the adjuster is explaining the choices, ensuring informed consent, and documenting the decision. The file note captures: (a) the decision Chen made on salvage, (b) the date and time of the conversation, (c) the documents provided to Chen (ACV worksheet, stacking exhibit, subrogation explanation), and (d) Chen's acknowledgment of receipt. The AI-drafted stacking exhibit is reviewed and adopted by the adjuster before sending; the adjuster's voice is what Chen reads on the cover note.

What the Adjuster, the Subrogation Team, and the CSR Each Own

The adjuster owns the file: the salvage decision conversation with Chen, the UM/UIM stacking exhibit sign-off, the BI settlement negotiation when the carrier's UIM exposure is triggered, and the customer relationship across the 6-14 month resolution window. The subrogation team owns the recovery: the demand letter to State Farm, the negotiation against the $50K BI and $50K PD limits, the statute calendar discipline, the comparative-negligence defense if the at-fault carrier alleges plaintiff fault, and the recovery booking when the settlement closes. The CSR owns the call-in and the on-file communication: refreshing Chen on file status, scheduling document reviews, and handling the small operational questions that arise during the 6-14 month window. AI accelerates each role's analytical work; none of the three roles disappears.

The file-note discipline is the same as the loss-run and reserve workflows: NAIC Model Bulletin §4 traceability, the model and version stamp, the prompt-log archive location, the input documents, and the human reviewer with date. Colorado Reg 10-1-1's algorithm inventory captures the UM/UIM stacking-analysis model if the carrier writes in Colorado, the Tractable photo-AI total-loss model if used in Colorado, and the subrogation-triage model if used in Colorado. Multi-state carriers maintain a single inventory across the book; single-state carriers maintain the inventory for their state.

Key Takeaways

• The total-loss auto file has three interlocking decisions in the first 72 hours: subrogation against the third-party limits, salvage disposition (Copart vs. retain-and-rebuild vs. insurer-rebuild), and UM/UIM stacking analysis when third-party limits may not make the insured whole. Each decision has a separate workflow but they converge in the customer conversation and the file outcome.
• The Tractable Highlander scenario: ACV $19,400, loan $22,800, third-party BI $50K / PD $50K, insured UIM $25K stacked × 2 vehicles add-on, Georgia (stacking-permitted, modified comparative 50% bar, OCGA §9-3-33 two-year statute). The AI triage runs in 18-25 minutes; the adjuster owns the override calls and the customer conversation.
• Subrogation triage outputs: liability assessment, Georgia OCGA §51-12-33 comparative-negligence math at scenario percentages, OCGA §9-3-33 statute calendar with 12/18/22-month checkpoints, State Farm prior-claim patterns at the venue, joint-and-several posture. Missing the statute is the highest-frequency subrogation E&O; the calendar is the protection.
• Salvage decision matrix: Copart at $3,600 net (carrier path), release to insured at $4,200 credit (insured-retain-and-rebuild at $13,400 with rebuilt-title disclosure and 25-35% resale haircut), or insurer-retain-and-rebuild (if carrier runs a sublet program, net positive recovery). The customer-preference signal moves the decision toward release-to-insured when the insured wants the vehicle.
• UM/UIM stacking exhibit: identifies the state matrix (Georgia OCGA §33-7-11; Florida F.S. §627.727; Pennsylvania 75 Pa.C.S. §1738 with Steinmark; California CIC §11580.2; Texas TCRP §1952; New York NYIL §3420), the policy-form citation by edition, the stacking-election and add-on-vs-reduction selection, the layered-recovery math, and the conditional trigger. The exhibit is what the carrier owes the insured in writing.
• Layered-recovery math for Chen: $50K third-party BI + $25K × 2 vehicles UIM stacked add-on = $100K total available. If Chen's BI settlement projects at $35K-$75K, UIM triggers conditionally when third-party settlement at or near the $50K limit does not fully indemnify; the carrier negotiates third-party first, documents the gap, and issues the UIM layer if triggered.
• The customer conversation has four moves: total-loss explanation with Tractable ACV, salvage choice, subrogation explanation (carrier handles PD subro directly; insured may want independent counsel for BI), and UIM stacking layer with written exhibit. The adjuster ensures informed consent and documents the decision; the AI-drafted stacking exhibit is reviewed and adopted before sending.
• State stacking matrix divergence is material: 30 states permit by election, others ban or restrict; Florida bans on post-2003 policies absent written waiver; Pennsylvania requires Steinmark waiver; New York uses SUM at policy level. Mis-applied matrices are the second-most-common UM/UIM E&O exposure after missed statute deadlines.
• NAIC Model Bulletin §4 and Colorado Reg 10-1-1 require the model-version stamp, prompt-log archive, input-document list, and human reviewer on every AI-touched triage artifact. Tractable photo-AI total-loss model, UM/UIM stacking analysis model, and subrogation-triage model each enter the algorithm inventory; the adjuster's file note captures the chain of custody.