The Rocky Mountain Affiliation of Public Insurance coverage Adjusters (RMAPIA) has produced a complete and scientifically grounded information to dealing with hearth losses that deserves severe consideration from anybody concerned within the adjustment of fire-related insurance coverage claims. 1 These RMAPIA Fireplace Protocols are among the many most thorough paperwork I’ve seen on this space, providing not solely a rigorous framework for classifying hearth losses but additionally a formidable depth of element in explaining why sure constructions and contents needs to be changed somewhat than repaired.
Having personally represented shoppers within the Colorado East Troublesome Wildfires and persevering with to signify owners within the aftermath of the Boulder Wildfires, I perceive firsthand the complexities and emotional toll of fireside losses. The identical is true for the Los Angeles wildfires, the place most of my current consideration has been centered.
These experiences make me significantly appreciative of the work completed by RMAPIA and the consultants behind these protocols. Their efforts signify a commendable and much-needed contribution to the physique of steerage accessible to all property insurance coverage adjusters, whether or not working for insurers as firm and unbiased adjusters or as public adjusters for policyholders.
What stands out in regards to the RMAPIA Fireplace Protocols is their reliance on arduous science. The doc outlines a Common Fireplace Testing Methodology, which is grounded in toxicology. This technique permits professionals to evaluate the presence of hazardous byproducts like VOCs, PAHs, heavy metals, dioxins, furans, and asbestos. These should not theoretical issues. They’re actual threats to human well being, typically invisible to the bare eye, and able to seeping into each crevice of a fire-damaged construction. The protocols go additional to outline poisonous thresholds for every contaminant, present EPA-approved testing strategies, and current clear suggestions on the right way to interpret the outcomes.
These protocols divide hearth losses into 4 distinct classes based mostly on whether or not poisonous byproducts are current and whether or not the construction’s integrity has been compromised. These classes are sensible and provide adjusters a roadmap to find out whether or not restore or substitute is acceptable. In instances involving poisonous publicity, the protocols advocate unequivocally for substitute, emphasizing the dangers related to incomplete remediation, encapsulation, or reliance on superficial cleansing.
This dedication to security and complete restoration is admirable. On the identical time, it will be important for me to be balanced and acknowledge that the protocols are clearly written with a public adjuster’s viewpoint in thoughts. They argue forcefully in opposition to insurer methods that favor restore over substitute, typically with the idea that insurers will look to attenuate payouts. In doing so, the protocols make a robust case for policyholder safety, however in addition they assume a excessive normal of proof and price justification that insurers might problem. I don’t consider that these have been peer reviewed.
One other considerate side of the doc is the consideration of distinctive property circumstances, resembling giant business constructions or compartmentalized buildings with remoted techniques. The protocols enable for nuance and don’t insist on one-size-fits-all options, although the burden of proving such exceptions is positioned squarely on the shoulders of those that argue in opposition to full substitute.
I think that essentially the most controversial, however no much less vital, sections of the doc concern the arguments in opposition to encapsulation or the cleansing of HVAC techniques and contents. The protocols clarify, in granular element, why such strategies are prone to fail. From the microstructure of wooden and metallic to the real-world limitations of restoration crews, the doc leaves little room to consider that deep, pervasive contamination could be safely and successfully reversed. I’m actually curious what the standard insurer retained hygienists must say about this discovering.
These RMAPIA Fireplace Protocols needs to be required studying for all events concerned within the adjustment of fireside claims, from area adjusters, claims managers and restoration professionals. I discover that the work seems technically sound and morally targeted by inserting the long-term well being and security of householders and occupants on the middle of each advice.
Having stood with wildfire survivors, I consider that is the form of principled, evidence-based strategy that deserves consideration. I applaud RMAPIA and its management for producing these.
Thought For The Day
“Essentially the most harmful factor on the planet is the sin of inserting revenue earlier than folks.”
— Martin Luther King Jr.
1 Joe Nieusma, David Phalen. RMAPIA Fireplace Protocols. Rocky Mountain Affiliation of Public Insurance coverage Adjusters (2025).