\n<\/p>\n
A recent conversation on LinkedIn has sparked serious questions about the objectivity of engineering reports used by insurance companies. Our firm is now taking the first step to find out whether the claims of systemic bias hold water.<\/p>\n
It all started when a public adjuster responded to a thread involving attorney Steven Badger. The statement was, \u201cI honestly can\u2019t remember an engineer report in the last 15 years that was favorable to the insured.\u201d I then posed the following simple question in a post:<\/p>\n
\u201cIs it possible that no insurance company engineer report has favored a policyholder in 15 years?\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n The response, if true, was a powerful statement deserving of follow-up. A 15-year run of engineer reports, all unfavorable to policyholders, would suggest something far more troubling than occasional errors or outlier behavior. It would imply a systemic practice that undermines fairness in claims resolution and damages trust in the entire process.<\/p>\n But as I admitted in my post, I approached that claim with skepticism. I do not doubt the frustrations many public adjusters, restoration contractors, and policyholders feel because I\u2019ve seen enough engineering reports to write posts on the topic, including Cosmetic Damage Hail Issues\u2014Biased Engineering Reports and Bad Faith<\/a><\/em>, Why Should Policyholders Be Compelled to Accept Engineering Opinions From Firms Owned By Independent Adjusters<\/a><\/em>, and\u00a0 Adjusters Cannot in Good Faith Rely Upon Biased or Outcome Oriented Opinions<\/a><\/em>. In my role, however, I don\u2019t typically receive engineering reports unless the matter becomes a dispute. My view is, admittedly, incomplete.<\/p>\n Still, I was intrigued enough to act. I offered to have a paralegal review the engineering reports provided by any public adjuster willing to participate. To my surprise, a seasoned public adjuster took me up on the offer. He sent us a thumb drive with a substantial number of reports generated over many years, all from insurance company-retained engineers.<\/p>\n Our review is now underway. We\u2019ll be looking at the reports from a neutral standpoint, categorizing each as:<\/p>\n One interesting hypothesis came from a litigation specialist who commented that most engineering reports he has seen do not outright deny claims but instead offer a repair protocol. This is often far less than what\u2019s demanded, but not a total rejection. That\u2019s something we\u2019ll be testing as well. Are most reports true denials, or simply scope reductions? I am not certain how to determine from just the report how often insurance company reports align with or contradict the facts on the ground.<\/p>\n Regardless of the outcome, the process matters. As I wrote before:<\/p>\n If it\u2019s even close to 100% unfavorable, it would be astonishing evidence of bias.<\/p>\n If it\u2019s not, it reminds us how easy it is to slip into exaggeration when we\u2019ve seen too many bad cases.<\/p>\n Either way, the exercise promotes clarity, transparency, and informed dialogue, which we need more of in this industry.<\/p>\n However, a word of caution, which insurance educator Bill Wilson<\/a> recently reminded us, \u201cAll generalizations are false, including this one.\u201d That quote, often attributed to Descartes, is particularly relevant here. We should be wary of painting with too broad a brush, even when we feel strongly, because feeling is not the same as knowing and truthful accuracy.<\/p>\n In the meantime, those who suspect manipulated or misleading engineering reports should not just vent about it online. Take action.<\/p>\n Send them to Doug Quinn and the American Policyholder Association<\/a>, who are actively tracking and working to stop this kind of misconduct. The Engineering Accountability Project<\/a> is doing real work in this space. Here is a blog with links about how to go about sending reports: What To Do About Outcome-Oriented Engineering Reports? Upload the Reports Into the Game-Changer Engineering Report Assessment Tool of the APA<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n We\u2019ll share what we find in our review once it\u2019s complete. Until then, I welcome your thoughts, your data, and your experiences. The more transparency is placed on this issue, the better it is for everyone in the insurance claim community.<\/p>\n Thought For The Day<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cGeneralizations are the death of thought.\u201d<\/em><\/strong>\n
\u2014Marya Mannes<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n