Why Onsite Inspections Are Essential for Accurate Large Loss Property Damage Claims

In the complex and high-stakes world of large loss property damage claims, the importance of onsite inspections cannot be overstated. Although the rise of technology has introduced remote assessments as a convenient and cost-effective alternative, the benefits of physically being present at the damage site far outweigh the advantages offered by remote methods.

Onsite inspections offer adjusters and experts the opportunity to immerse themselves in the environment of the damage, allowing for a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the situation that is often unattainable through remote assessments alone. The ability to evaluate damage in real-time leads to more accurate diagnoses and scopes of work, which are essential for effective and efficient claim processing.

When adjusters or experts are physically present at the damage site, they can observe the full context of the situation. This contextual understanding is crucial for identifying all the contributing factors to the damage, which might not be evident through photographs, videos or even live remote feeds. For instance, subtle structural issues or environmental conditions that contribute to the damage may only become apparent when viewed firsthand. This depth of insight enables more accurate assessments and can significantly reduce the likelihood of overlooking critical details that could affect the outcome of the claim.

Moreover, onsite inspections facilitate immediate decision-making and problem-solving. When experts are on the scene, they can quickly address any emerging issues, which is particularly important in large loss scenarios where time is of the essence. For example, if an adjuster identifies a previously unnoticed hazard or a new development in the damage, they can make swift decisions about how to proceed. This not only minimizes downtime but also helps to prevent further damage, which can be crucial in reducing the overall cost of the claim.

Another significant advantage of onsite inspections is the opportunity for direct communication with the insured. In large loss claims, the stakes are high, and clear communication is essential to ensure that all parties have a mutual understanding of the situation. Onsite inspections allow adjusters to speak face-to-face with the insured, providing an opportunity to address concerns, answer questions and explain the next steps in the claims process. This direct interaction can help to build trust and reduce the likelihood of miscommunication, a common issue in remote assessments where nuances and intentions can sometimes be lost in translation.

When adjusters and experts perform onsite inspections, they should be on the lookout for the following:

Wear and Tear or Maintenance Neglect: Signs of long-term neglect or deferred maintenance, such as rust, wear on mechanical systems, or deterioration of materials, might be subtle but are important in understanding the full scope of a claim.

Unusual Patterns of Damage: Patterns of damage that might indicate underlying issues (such as uneven settling, localized wear) can often be identified more easily in person, where the inspector can view the property from multiple angles.

Accessibility Issues: The actual accessibility of certain areas of the property, such as crawl spaces, attics, or basements, can only be fully assessed onsite. These areas might harbor hidden damage that could be missed otherwise.

Odors and Air Quality Issues: Certain smells, such as mold, smoke, or chemical odors, can indicate hidden damage like water intrusion, fire damage, or hazardous material leaks. These are often not detectable through remote assessments.

Insect or Pest Infestations: Evidence of termites, rodents or other pests can sometimes be missed remotely but can be critical to assessing the extent of damage, particularly in wood structures.

As technology has advanced, remote diagnostics for property damage evaluations have gained popularity, largely due to their convenience and the potential for cost savings. Remote assessments, using tools like drones, satellite imagery and video conferencing, offer a way to quickly gather information about a damage site without the need for travel. In cases where the damage is minor or where an immediate onsite visit is not possible, remote assessments can be a valuable tool. They can serve as an initial step in the evaluation process, providing a preliminary overview that can inform the subsequent onsite inspection.

However, despite the growing popularity of remote assessments, there are significant limitations to this approach, especially in the context of large loss property damage claims.

Here is one story from I heard from a friend/adjuster:

John, a homeowner in a coastal city, experienced significant property damage after a powerful hurricane swept through his neighborhood. The storm had caused flooding, strong winds and debris to crash into his home. Concerned about the extensive damage, John promptly filed a claim with his insurer. Due to the widespread nature of the disaster, the carrier decided to use remote assessments to expedite the claims process. They requested that John submit photos and videos of the damage. Eager to resolve the situation quickly, John followed their instructions, capturing images of the obvious damage: shattered windows, a torn roof and water-damaged floors. The remote assessment team reviewed the submitted materials and issued a preliminary estimate for repairs.

However, as the repairs began, the contractor noticed something troubling: the foundation of John’s home had shifted significantly due to the flooding and wind forces. This subtle but critical damage wasn’t visible in the photos and videos John had provided. The shift in the foundation had also compromised the structural integrity of the entire house, which would require a much more extensive and costly repair than initially estimated. Because this foundational damage was not identified during the remote assessment, John’s claim was underfunded, leading to delays and additional expenses. The insurance company had to send an adjuster onsite to reassess the situation, which not only prolonged the repair process but also created significant stress for John. Had the insurer conducted an onsite inspection from the beginning, they would have detected the structural issues early on, saving time, reducing costs, and ensuring John’s home was restored safely and correctly.

The risk of fraud is also a significant concern when it comes to remote assessments. Without being physically present at the site, it is easier for fraudulent claims to go undetected. For example, damages might be exaggerated, or pre-existing conditions may be misrepresented as new damage. Onsite inspections provide a critical layer of scrutiny that can help to prevent such fraudulent activities. Adjusters can verify the authenticity of the damage and ensure that the claim is legitimate, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of the claims process.

Onsite inspections are essential for accurate large loss property damage claims. They provide a comprehensive understanding of the situation, enable immediate problem-solving and facilitate clear communication with the insured. While remote assessments offer convenience and can be a valuable tool in certain situations, they cannot replace the thoroughness of an onsite inspection. By striking a balance between the use of remote technology and the necessity of onsite evaluations, insurance companies can ensure more accurate and reliable outcomes, reduce the risk of fraud, and ultimately enhance customer satisfaction.

In the end, the investment in onsite inspections pays off in the form of more precise problem identification, improved efficiency, and better overall service to the insured.

Rankin is CEO of Zap Consulting, a national firm that specializes in insurance claim consulting services for the HVAC, electronics and equipment industries. Before founding Zap Consulting, Rankin held various roles with insurance companies and engineering firms.