Use a causation expert, not just your own theory, to fight a “wear and tear” denial.
The Forensic Detective for Your Claim
Imagine a building collapses. The city inspector (the insurer) declares it was due to old age (“wear and tear”). But you suspect something else. A causation expert is the forensic detective you hire to investigate the scene. They analyze the wreckage, test the materials, and find the hidden clue—the single, faulty beam or the specific wind event—that proves the collapse was caused by a sudden, covered event, not a slow, predictable decay. Their scientific report transforms your theory into undeniable proof.
Stop accepting a “material misrepresentation” denial. Do prove the information wasn’t intentionally false or relevant to the risk, instead.
The Irrelevant Mistake on Your Application
Imagine being fired because you forgot to list a summer job you had in high school on your resume. This is a “material misrepresentation.” To fight it, you must prove two things. First, it was an honest mistake, not an intentional lie. Second, you must show that even if your employer had known about that summer job, they still would have hired you. You must prove the forgotten fact was an irrelevant detail, not a deal-breaking piece of information that would have changed their decision.
Stop just arguing against a “late notice” denial. Do prove the insurer wasn’t prejudiced by the delay, instead.
The Crime Scene That Wasn’t Contaminated
You report a robbery a month after it happened. The police (the insurer) want to dismiss the case because of the “late notice.” To win, you must prove the crime scene wasn’t contaminated. You must show that their ability to investigate was not harmed (“prejudiced”) by the delay. If you can prove that all the evidence, witnesses, and facts were just as available a month later as they were on day one, you can argue that their rights were not affected, and the denial is invalid.
The #1 secret to overturning a “failure to mitigate” denial is to provide receipts for your temporary repairs.
The Proof That You Were a First Responder
When a pipe bursts, you are the first responder. Your duty is to stop the bleeding. The insurer might later deny your claim by saying you let the damage get worse (“failure to mitigate”). The secret to defeating this is proof. The receipt for the tarp you bought, the invoice from the 24/7 water extraction company, and the photos of your temporary patch are the official report of your heroic actions. They are the undeniable evidence that you did your job to prevent the situation from getting worse.
I’m just going to say it: The “concealment or fraud” clause is the insurer’s nuclear option to intimidate you.
The Loud Accusation in a High-Stakes Poker Game
You’re in a high-stakes poker game, you have a winning hand, and you’ve bet all your chips. The insurer, seeing they are about to lose, suddenly stands up and loudly accuses you of cheating. This is their “fraud” clause. It is a terrifying, aggressive, and often baseless accusation designed for one purpose: to intimidate you into folding your legitimate, winning hand. They are hoping the fear and stress of the accusation alone will be enough to make you walk away from the table.
The reason your claim was denied for an “act of God” is because you’re not challenging their definition of the term.
The Drizzle They Called a Hurricane
An “act of God” is a powerful defense, but it can be misused. Imagine a baseball game is cancelled because of a “rainout.” But you were there, and it was only a light drizzle. The insurer is that umpire calling a rainout to avoid playing. You must challenge their definition. Was the wind that damaged your roof truly a historic, unforeseeable event, or was it a common thunderstorm that a well-maintained roof should have withstood? Don’t let them call a drizzle a hurricane.
If you’re still accepting a denial for “faulty workmanship,” you’re losing the chance to prove the damage was a subsequent, covered event.
The Bad Work vs. the Catastrophe It Caused
Imagine a roofer improperly installs a shingle. That bad work is “faulty workmanship,” and your policy won’t pay to fix it. But a month later, that shingle blows off in a storm, and water pours in, ruining your ceiling and floors. That water damage is a new, “ensuing” loss. It is a separate, covered catastrophe that was caused by the bad work. You must separate the initial trigger (the bad work) from the subsequent disaster (the covered damage).
The biggest lie you’ve been told is that a denial for a “criminal act” exclusion is impossible to fight.
An Accusation Is Not a Conviction
This exclusion allows an insurer to deny a claim related to a criminal act. But the key is in the details. Imagine a guest is injured at your party during a fight. The insurer denies the liability claim, citing the exclusion. But what if the person was defending themselves and was never charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime? You can fight this denial by proving that the “act” never rose to the level of a criminal conviction, making the exclusion inapplicable.
I wish I knew how to fight a denial based on the “illegal activity” exclusion when I was younger.
The Spark vs. the Uncontrollable Wildfire
The “illegal activity” exclusion requires a direct link between the illegal act and the loss. Imagine someone sets off an illegal firework, and the spark lands in a pile of dry leaves, causing a huge fire. The insurer will deny the claim. To fight this, you must argue that the fire was an unforeseeable accident that was a consequence of the act, not a guaranteed result. The fight is to separate the minor illegal act (the spark) from the subsequent, disproportionate, and accidental loss (the wildfire).
99% of people make this one mistake when denied for a “pre-existing condition”: not checking the policy’s specific look-back period.
The Crime They Can Only Charge You for if It Was Recent
A “pre-existing condition” is like a crime the insurer accuses you of having. But the policy has a strict statute of limitations called a “look-back period.” It means they can only search for this “crime” in your medical records for a short, specific window of time before your policy began (e.g., the last six months). You must find that period in your policy and then prove your medical treatment occurred before that window opened, making their accusation legally invalid.
Use an engineer’s report to fight a denial for “earth movement,” not just arguing with the adjuster.
The Burst Pipe That Caused the Earthquake
Your foundation cracks, and the insurer denies the claim, blaming the broad exclusion for “earth movement.” Arguing with them is useless. You need an expert witness. A structural engineer’s report is that witness. The engineer can analyze the soil and the structure to prove that the true “proximate cause” of the damage wasn’t a random shift in the earth, but a covered peril like a burst underground pipe that washed away the soil and caused the foundation to settle. The pipe burst caused the earth to move.
Stop accepting a denial for “business use” of your vehicle. Do check your policy for the specific definition of “business,” instead.
The Rulebook’s Definition, Not Theirs
An insurer might deny your claim by saying you were using your car for “business.” But you must force them to read from their own rulebook. Your policy has a very specific, contractual definition of that term. It might exclude delivering pizzas or driving for Uber, but it may specifically allow for driving to a meeting or between offices. Don’t let them use the common, everyday meaning of “business”; make them prove you violated the exact, narrow definition written in your contract.
Stop letting them deny a claim based on a “vacancy” clause. Do provide utility bills or witness statements to show the property was not vacant, instead.
The Difference Between an Empty House and a Ghost House
Insurers use the “vacancy” clause to deny claims on empty homes. But “vacant” and “unoccupied” are two different things. “Unoccupied” is a house between tenants, with furniture inside. “Vacant” is a ghost house, completely empty of all property. To fight this, you must prove the house was merely unoccupied. Utility bills showing the heat was on, or a neighbor’s statement that they could see furniture through the window, is the proof that your house was still a home, not a ghost.
The #1 secret for fighting a “non-cooperation” denial is to document every attempt you made to provide information.
The Certified Mail Receipt That Proves You Played Ball
A “non-cooperation” denial is the insurer’s attempt to blame you for their own delays. It’s like them claiming you never sent them the required documents. The secret to defeating this is to build a mountain of proof that you were the perfect partner. Every certified mail receipt, every sent email, and every follow-up note in your diary is a signed affidavit proving you made every attempt to cooperate. It shows a judge that the uncooperative party was them, not you.
I’m just going to say it: “Lack of maintenance” is a subjective reason for denial that can be fought with evidence of upkeep.
The Maintenance Log That Silences the Accusation
“Lack of maintenance” is one of the laziest, most subjective denials an insurer can make. It’s an opinion, not a fact. The way to defeat it is with your own facts. A receipt from a roofer who inspected your roof last year, an invoice from a plumber who snaked your drains, or even photos of you cleaning your gutters are all hard evidence. This maintenance log transforms their vague accusation of neglect into a proven track record of your responsible ownership.
The reason your water damage claim was denied is because you let the insurer classify it as a “flood” instead of a “pipe burst.”
The Water from Below vs. the Water from Within
The source of the water is everything. “Flood” water is rising ground water that enters your home from the outside, and it is excluded from a standard policy. A “pipe burst” or “sewer backup” is water that escapes from your own plumbing system, from within the house. The insurer will always try to call any water event a “flood.” You must control the narrative from the first call, using the correct terms to prove the water was an internal system failure, not an external invasion.
If you’re still accepting a denial based on an “excluded driver,” you’re losing the opportunity to argue for coverage based on public policy.
The Law That Protects the Public from a Private Contract
You signed a document excluding your son from your auto policy. He gets in an accident, and the insurer denies the claim. But what about the innocent person he hit? Some states have laws based on “public policy” that say an insurer cannot leave an innocent victim with no recourse. This argument says that the state’s interest in protecting the public can sometimes override the private contract you signed, forcing the insurer to provide at least the minimum level of liability coverage.
The biggest lie you’ve been told is that a denial for a “policy lapse” is final, even if you missed the payment by one day.
The Eviction Notice They Forgot to Send
An insurance company cannot just cancel your policy because you missed a payment. They are like a landlord who must follow a very strict legal eviction process. State laws require them to send you a formal, written “notice of cancellation” with a specific grace period before they can terminate your coverage. If they cannot produce a record that they sent this legally required notice, their cancellation is invalid, and your policy was still in force, even if your payment was late.
I wish I knew that a “reservation of rights” letter was the first step toward a denial.
The Polite Letter That Says, “I’m Looking for the Exit”
A “reservation of rights” letter feels procedural, but it is a giant red flag. It’s the insurance company politely telling you, “I will investigate your claim, but I am actively searching for a reason in the policy to deny it, and I reserve the right to do so at any time.” It is the first brick they lay in the wall of their defense against you. When you receive this letter, you must understand the game has changed, and you are no longer being treated as a customer, but as a potential adversary.
99% of people make this one mistake when denied for “no covered loss”: not demanding the insurer specify the exact policy language they are relying on.
Make the Referee Point to the Rule in the Rulebook
A denial letter that just says “this is not a covered loss” is a lazy, invalid move. It’s a referee calling a foul without saying what the foul was. It’s your right to challenge that call. You must immediately send a written request demanding they provide you with the exact page number, section, and paragraph of the policy that contains the exclusion they are using. This forces them to show their cards and gives you the exact language you need to attack in your appeal.
Use a forensic accountant, not just your own books, to fight a “business interruption” denial.
The Expert Witness for Your Financial Pain
When your business shuts down, your own calculation of lost profits is just your opinion. The insurance company will dispute it. A forensic accountant is the expert financial witness you bring into the courtroom. They will conduct a professional, independent audit of your books and produce a formal report that calculates your lost income down to the penny. Their unbiased, expert opinion transforms your personal estimate into a hard, financial fact that the insurer will have to treat with respect.
Stop accepting a denial for “cosmetic damage.” Do get a contractor to state that the “cosmetic” issue will lead to functional damage, instead.
The Small Dent That Will Become a Giant Rust Hole
An insurer will deny a claim for a small dent in your metal siding by calling it “cosmetic.” But a qualified contractor can be your expert witness. They can write a report stating that the “cosmetic” dent has cracked the siding’s protective finish, which will now allow water to get in, leading to rust, rot, and a much larger “functional” problem down the road. This proves the small dent is not just a beauty mark; it’s the beginning of a much more serious disease.
Stop letting them deny your claim because it doesn’t meet the deductible. Do challenge their low damage estimate, instead.
The Fight Is Over the Bill, Not the Copay
The insurer’s adjuster writes a repair estimate for $800. Your deductible is $1,000. They close the claim, saying the damage doesn’t meet the deductible. The problem isn’t your deductible; the problem is their ridiculously low estimate. You must not argue about the deductible. Instead, get your own contractor to write a realistic estimate for $5,000. The fight is not about the amount you owe; it’s about the true amount of the damage they owe you for.
The #1 hack for fighting a “no evidence of forced entry” denial is to look for signs of lock picking or a copied key.
The Ghost Key That Opened the Locked Door
A theft claim with no broken window is a red flag for insurers. But a locked door doesn’t mean there was no forced entry. You need to find evidence of the “ghost key.” Hire a locksmith to inspect the lock for subtle scratches and marks that indicate it was picked. Or, investigate if a former employee or contractor might have had a key copied. This shifts the narrative from a suspicious, unlocked door to a sophisticated, covert entry that proves a real theft occurred.
I’m just going to say it: Many denials are based on the hope that you won’t read the specific policy exclusion they cite.
The Bluff That Works If You Don’t Look at Their Cards
The denial letter will cite a scary-sounding exclusion, like “Ordinance or Law,” and hope you’ll be too intimidated to read it. They are bluffing. They are betting that you won’t actually pull out your policy and read the full paragraph. Often, when you read the fine print, you’ll discover that the exclusion only applies in very specific circumstances that are completely different from your situation. Their entire denial is built on the hope that you will be afraid to call their bluff.
The reason your claim was denied for “not being on the policy” is because you haven’t argued for coverage as a resident relative.
The Person Who Lives in the House Is Part of the Family
Your college-aged son, who lives with you, gets into an accident. The insurer denies the claim because he’s not a “named insured” on your policy. But most policies automatically provide coverage for any “resident relatives” or family members living in the household. You must not argue that he should have been named; you must argue that, as a family member living under your roof, he was already included under the policy’s own definition of who is considered an “insured.”
If you’re still accepting a denial based on a verbal conversation, you’re losing; demand the denial in writing.
A Spoken “No” Is a Ghost; a Written “No” Is a Target
A denial over the phone is a ghost. It’s a fleeting, powerless statement that you can’t fight because it doesn’t officially exist. It allows the insurer to avoid creating a paper trail or starting the clock on your time to appeal. You must never accept it. Your immediate response must be, “Thank you for that information. I now require you to send me that denial in a formal, written letter that cites the specific policy language you are using.” This forces the ghost to become a physical target you can actually aim at.
The biggest lie you’ve been told is that you can’t fight a denial based on a “moral hazard.”
They Are Judging Your Character, Not Your Claim
A “moral hazard” denial is one of the most insulting and subjective reasons an insurer can use. They are not denying you based on the facts; they are denying you because they have made a judgment that you are a “risky” or “immoral” person. This is often based on things like a poor credit score or a past bankruptcy. You can fight this by proving these character judgments are irrelevant to the facts of your current claim and that they are acting as a prejudiced judge, not a neutral investigator.
I wish I knew how to argue that two separate causes contributed to my loss when one was excluded.
The Wind That Broke the Window Before the Excluded Flood
Imagine a hurricane. The wind (a covered peril) breaks your window. An hour later, the flood waters (an excluded peril) rise and enter your home. The insurer will blame the entire loss on the flood. The legal argument you must make is called “concurrent causation.” You must prove that the two events were separate and that the wind damage happened first. This can preserve the coverage for the damage caused by the wind, even if the subsequent flood damage is not covered.
99% of people make this one mistake when denied: they focus on fairness instead of the policy contract.
This Is a Business Dispute, Not a Moral Crusade
When you are denied, it feels incredibly unfair. Your natural instinct is to argue about what is right and what is moral. This is a mistake. An insurance claim is not a debate about fairness; it is a business dispute over a legal contract. The person reviewing your appeal does not care about what is fair. They only care about what the contract says. You will win your appeal not by arguing for justice, but by proving that the insurer has breached the specific terms of the written agreement.
Use a meteorologist’s report to fight a denial that claims the wind speed wasn’t high enough to cause damage.
The Expert Who Measures the Storm
The insurer denies your roof claim, saying their weather data shows the wind was only 40 mph. This is their opinion. To defeat it, you hire your own expert. A forensic meteorologist will analyze certified, location-specific radar and weather station data to produce a scientific report proving that your specific property was hit by a “microburst” with 80 mph winds. This expert report replaces their generic weather data with a specific, scientific analysis of the storm that hit your house.
Stop accepting a denial for a claim filed after a policy was cancelled. Do check for improper notice of cancellation, instead.
The Letter They Were Legally Required to Send
You have a claim on June 5th, but the insurer denies it, saying your policy was cancelled for non-payment on June 1st. But did they follow the law? State laws require insurers to send a very specific, formal written notice of cancellation via mail, giving you a certain number of days to pay. You must demand that they provide proof—a certified mail receipt—that they sent this legally required notice. If they can’t, their cancellation was illegal, and your policy was still in effect.
Stop letting them deny your claim for a stolen item by saying you can’t prove you owned it. Do use photos and witness statements, instead.
Recreating the Crime Scene with Evidence
The insurer denies your theft claim for a valuable ring, saying you have no receipt to prove you owned it. A receipt is not the only form of proof. You can rebuild the “proof of ownership” with other evidence. Find old family photos of you wearing the ring. Get a sworn statement from the friend who was with you when you bought it. Provide the original box it came in. This collection of circumstantial evidence can be just as powerful as a single, missing piece of paper.
The #1 secret to fighting a “no direct physical loss” denial is to find evidence of microscopic damage, like smoke particles.
The Invisible Damage That Makes Your House Unlivable
A fire next door leaves your house standing but filled with the smell of smoke. The insurer denies your claim, saying there was “no direct physical loss.” The secret is to prove the invisible damage is real. Hire an industrial hygienist to take air samples and test your walls. Their report, showing that your home is contaminated with microscopic smoke and soot particles, is the scientific proof of a real, physical loss. It proves your house has been physically altered at a microscopic level.
I’m just going to say it: The “Intentional Acts” exclusion is often misapplied to situations that were accidental.
The Act Was on Purpose, but the Damage Was an Accident
You are trying to chop down a dead tree in your yard. You intentionally swing the axe. But you accidentally lose your grip, and the axe flies through your neighbor’s window. The insurer will try to deny the claim, saying you “intentionally” swung the axe. This is a misapplication of the exclusion. The exclusion is for intentional harm, not intentional acts. You must argue that while your act was on purpose, the resulting damage was a complete and total accident.
The reason your claim was denied is because you admitted fault in your first call, even though you weren’t at fault.
The Confession You Didn’t Know You Were Making
In the stress of your first call, you might say something like, “I feel so bad this happened,” or “I should have been paying more attention.” To you, this is just being polite. To the adjuster, who is taking detailed notes, this is a recorded admission of fault. They will use your own words as the primary reason to deny your liability claim. Never apologize, and never speculate on fault in that first call. Stick only to the known, neutral facts of what happened.
If you’re still accepting a denial because you can’t provide a receipt, you’re losing the chance to provide other proof of value.
Rebuilding a Price Tag from Memory and Research
The insurer demands a receipt for a five-year-old stolen television, which you don’t have. You don’t have to give up. You can recreate the proof of value. Find the credit card statement showing the purchase from Best Buy. Go online and find the original product page with the price. Find the instruction manual that proves you owned that specific, high-end model. This collection of evidence can successfully prove the item’s value, even without the original paper receipt.
The biggest lie you’ve been told is that a “pollution” exclusion applies to a simple paint spill.
The Nuclear Waste vs. the Household Accident
The “pollution” exclusion was written to protect insurance companies from massive, industrial-scale environmental disasters, like an oil tanker spill or a chemical plant leak. However, adjusters will sometimes try to misapply this terrifying exclusion to a simple household accident, like a can of paint spilling on a neighbor’s expensive driveway. You must fight this by arguing that the intent of the exclusion was for large-scale industrial pollution, not for a common, accidental household spill.
I wish I knew that I could fight a denial based on the insurer’s own contradictory statements.
The Trap You Can Set With Their Own Words
The adjuster denies your claim in writing, stating it’s because the damage was “wear and tear.” But in their recorded claim notes, they wrote that the damage was “likely from a recent storm.” You have just caught them in a contradiction. By getting a copy of your entire claim file, you can find these inconsistencies. Pointing out that their own internal documents contradict their official denial letter is a powerful way to destroy their credibility and overturn the denial.
This one small action of reading the entire denial letter, including all cited exclusions, will change how you form your appeal.
The Battle Plan They Are Forced to Hand You
The denial letter is not just a “no.” It is the opposing army’s complete battle plan, which they are legally required to hand to you. It tells you exactly which part of the policy (the exclusion) they are using as their fortress and what evidence they are using as their weapon. Do not just read the first paragraph. You must dissect the entire letter, especially the policy language they cite. This tells you exactly where you need to focus your counter-attack.
Use your state’s specific laws on “matching,” not just arguing that your siding looks ugly.
The Law vs. Your Opinion on Aesthetics
Arguing that your partially replaced siding looks “ugly” is a subjective complaint about aesthetics. It’s a weak argument. But many states have specific laws or regulations about “matching.” Citing “State Statute 123.45 regarding reasonable and uniform appearance” is a powerful legal argument. It transforms your personal opinion about looks into a formal accusation that the insurer is violating a specific state law. That is an argument their legal department must take seriously.
Stop accepting a denial for a “service animal” related liability claim. Do check your policy for specific animal exclusions, instead.
A Medical Device on Four Legs
An insurer might deny a claim for a dog bite using a broad “animal liability” exclusion. But if the animal in question is a certified service animal, you have a powerful counter-argument. You can argue that the animal is not a “pet” but is, in fact, a piece of “medical equipment” necessary for the person to function, similar to a wheelchair. This can sometimes navigate around a standard pet exclusion, as the animal’s legal status is different.
Stop letting them deny your claim because an “independent” expert sided with them. Do challenge that expert’s credentials and bias, instead.
The “Expert Witness” Who Works for the Other Team
The insurer will present a report from their “independent” expert as if it were gospel truth. But you have the right to challenge that expert. Do some research. Does this engineer get 90% of his work from this specific insurance company? Is his specialty in a completely different field? By exposing the expert’s financial bias or lack of specific credentials, you can argue to a judge that his “independent” opinion is actually just a paid-for conclusion from a hired gun.
The #1 hack for fighting a “duplicate coverage” denial is to understand the “primary vs. excess” insurance clauses.
The First Responder vs. the Backup Team
You have two policies that could cover a loss. The insurer denies your claim, saying the other policy should pay. This is a “duplicate coverage” issue. The hack is to read the “Other Insurance” clause in both policies. One will define itself as “primary,” meaning it is the first responder and must pay first. The other will define itself as “excess,” meaning it is the backup team that only pays after the first policy has paid its full limit. This language solves the argument for you.
I’m just going to say it: Denials are often just the first step in a negotiation.
The First Offer Is “No”
In a flea market negotiation, the seller’s first offer is a high price. In an insurance claim negotiation, the insurer’s first move is often a “no.” A denial is not always a final verdict on your claim. For complex or expensive claims, it is often just their opening bid in the negotiation. They are testing you to see if you will accept their “offer” of zero and walk away. You must see the denial not as a closed door, but as the starting bell for the real fight.
The reason your liability claim was denied for “expected or intended injury” is because you haven’t argued you didn’t intend the outcome.
You Intended to Act, but You Didn’t Intend to Harm
You are playing catch in the backyard and you accidentally throw the ball over the fence, breaking your neighbor’s window. You intended to throw the ball. You did not intend for it to cause damage. The “expected or intended injury” exclusion is designed to block coverage for deliberate acts of harm, like punching someone. You must argue that while your action was intentional, the resulting injury was a complete and unforeseen accident, which makes the exclusion inapplicable.
If you’re still not questioning the insurer’s cause and origin report, you’re losing your best chance to overturn a denial.
The Official Story They Paid to Have Written
After a fire, the insurer will hire their own “Cause and Origin” expert to write a report on how it started. This report is not a neutral, scientific document. It is a piece of evidence created by an expert who is paid by the other side. You must treat it with deep suspicion. Hiring your own expert to conduct a separate investigation is often the only way to find the true cause and challenge the official story that their paid-for expert has conveniently created for them.
The biggest lie you’ve told is that you can’t fight a denial that comes after they already issued a payment.
The Down Payment They Are Trying to Take Back
Imagine an insurer sends you a $5,000 check for your water damage claim. A month later, they send you a denial letter and demand you pay them back, saying they made a mistake. This is not necessarily a final decision. The legal concept of “estoppel” says that they made a promise (the payment) that you relied on. You can fight this reversal by arguing that they already admitted coverage by issuing the first payment, and it is unfair for them to go back on their word now.
I wish I knew to look for inconsistencies between the denial letter and the adjuster’s claim notes.
The Official Story vs. the Private Diary
The formal denial letter is the insurer’s official, polished story. But the adjuster’s internal claim notes are their private diary, where they write down their real thoughts. You have the right to get a copy of that entire file. You can often find a goldmine of contradictions. The denial letter might say the cause was “wear and tear,” but the adjuster’s notes might say, “Looks like clear wind damage, but I’m not sure we want to cover this.” This inconsistency is the key to unlocking your claim.
99% of people make this one mistake when denied: they give up.
The Wall That Is Actually a Door
An insurance claim denial is designed to feel like a solid brick wall. It looks final, intimidating, and impassable. The insurance company has spent billions of dollars perfecting the look and feel of this wall. They know that if it looks scary enough, the vast majority of people will simply turn around and go home. But you must know this secret: it is not a wall. It is a cleverly disguised door. You just have to know how to find the handle and have the courage to turn it.