Every time I see a push to “standardize” one thing within the claims course of, I concentrate. Not as a result of requirements are unhealthy, however as a result of who writes the requirements typically determines who wins the dispute. Insurance coverage firms have a military of insurance coverage lobbyists, and after I see them writing one thing about an esoteric subject corresponding to forensic engineering requirements, I can guess whose agenda is being pushed.
Insurance coverage business lobbyist Lisa Miller wrote an article concerning the current dialogue popping out of Florida concerning proposed guidelines for forensic engineers. The Florida Board of Skilled Engineers is contemplating a brand new rule chapter governing how engineers put together harm analysis reviews utilized in insurance coverage claims and litigation. On its face, this seems like a good suggestion. Who may very well be in opposition to moral, correct, and well-supported engineering opinions?
However as with most issues within the insurance coverage world, the satan is just not within the headline however within the particulars. There isn’t a query that issues exist in forensic engineering. The difficulty is just not imaginary. Engineers, like legal professionals and adjusters, are typically accused of appearing extra like advocates than impartial professionals. Reviews can differ broadly. Courts regularly see two certified engineers take a look at the identical roof and attain fully reverse conclusions. That inconsistency frustrates everybody concerned.
Douglas Quinn began the American Policyholders Affiliation after being a sufferer of outcome-oriented insurance coverage knowledgeable reviews from Superstorm Sandy in 2012. I warned about this in a 2009 weblog publish titled Insurance coverage Firm Consultants Are Typically Biased and Final result Oriented. I extra lately addressed the problem in Can Policyholders Belief Insurance coverage Firm Retained Consultants?
So, it shouldn’t be stunning that one other state studied this precise subject. A 2006 Colorado process power finding out forensic engineering discovered that knowledgeable reviews have been more and more turning into advocacy items slightly than goal analyses. The engineering neighborhood itself acknowledged that one thing wanted enchancment.
What Colorado in the end concluded is instructive, and I counsel that it ought to be thought of by Florida’s skilled engineering neighborhood. Slightly than imposing inflexible, prescriptive guidelines, it emphasised ethics, which incorporates objectivity, independence, and reliance on sound scientific rules whereas preserving skilled judgment. The reasoning was easy: engineering, particularly forensic engineering, can’t be decreased to a guidelines. Each construction, each storm, and each failure situation is completely different.
That brings us again to Florida. The proposed guidelines being mentioned aren’t merely about ethics. They go a lot additional. They impose detailed necessities, obligatory documentation, and particular methodologies. They seem to rework engineering from a occupation grounded in judgment into one ruled by compliance. My suspicion is that the insurance coverage foyer and routinely retained insurance coverage firm engineers are pushing this agenda.
That shift and who’s pushing it issues. Once you convert skilled judgment into regulatory checklists, you aren’t simply enhancing consistency. As a substitute, you might be controlling outcomes. The query turns into whose outcomes are being pushed?
Giant engineering companies, lots of which usually work for insurance coverage firms taking in tens of thousands and thousands of {dollars} and, in some circumstances, a whole lot of thousands and thousands of {dollars} after any main disaster, are well-positioned to soak up these necessities. They already function with standardized processes, inner compliance programs, and vital assets.
Impartial engineers, alternatively, typically working for policyholders or entities not even concerned within the insurance coverage claims area, could discover these guidelines pricey, burdensome, and in some circumstances, unimaginable to fulfill. That is very true when the documentation merely doesn’t exist for older constructions. This financial actuality concerning the engineering opinions costing extra to suit checklists alone ought to give pause.
There’s additionally a deeper scientific subject lurking beneath the floor. A lot of the controversy facilities on how harm is evaluated and seems to notably heart on roof harm. Some engineers rely closely on laboratory testing and code-based thresholds to argue that sure wind speeds can’t trigger harm. Others level out what appears apparent to anybody who has frolicked in the actual world: roofs age, supplies degrade, set up varies, and storms aren’t neat, managed laboratory occasions. Wind is turbulent, cyclical, and sustained over time. All of us within the subject have seen wind harm {that a} laboratory or code says can’t occur with decrease wind speeds. I assume we can’t imagine our mendacity eyes.
In different phrases, real-world circumstances hardly ever resemble laboratory circumstances.
If new guidelines elevate standardized testing and “authorized strategies” above skilled judgment, they threat favoring simplified fashions over advanced actuality. That doesn’t essentially produce extra correct conclusions. As a substitute, it produces extra constant ones. Consistency is completely different from reality.
There’s one other consequence that has not obtained sufficient consideration. These guidelines successfully shift energy away from the courts. Historically, disputes over engineering opinions are resolved by way of testimony, cross-examination, and credibility determinations underneath evidentiary requirements like Daubert. Judges and juries weigh competing opinions. Underneath the proposed framework, an engineer may current a report that’s accepted in courtroom, but nonetheless face disciplinary motion for failing to adjust to a regulatory guidelines. That creates a parallel system by which compliance could matter greater than correctness.
The Colorado process power warned about this type of overreach. Makes an attempt to rigidly outline requirements of care can “open up a Pandora’s field” and limit consultants in ways in which in the end undermine justice slightly than market it. Engineering, like legislation, requires flexibility as a result of info differ. A one-size-fits-all rule hardly ever suits anybody properly.
None of that is to say that reform is pointless. There are unhealthy reviews. There are exaggerated claims. There are, at occasions, opinions that stretch past what the proof helps. However the treatment shouldn’t be worse than the illness.
The true subject is just not whether or not requirements ought to exist. It’s who defines them and the way they’re utilized. If requirements change into so inflexible that they get rid of unbiased judgment, improve prices for policyholders, and disproportionately profit the repeat gamers within the insurance coverage claims business, then we’re not speaking about enhancing engineering. We’re speaking about reshaping the taking part in subject.
This can be a dialog value having brazenly and never quietly in some rule making committee. That’s the reason I’m scripting this weblog. The query I’d pose to regulators, engineers, and policymakers is straightforward:
Are we making an attempt to enhance the seek for reality, or are we making an attempt to standardize the result?
These aren’t the identical factor.
The general public remark deadline is March 31, 2026, and I’ll ship this weblog publish for consideration. If you wish to submit a public remark about this essential subject, please e mail your feedback on to [email protected]. You possibly can submit your feedback to proposed Chapter 61G15-38, Broken Constructions, utilizing the Florida Board of Engineering’s on-line remark kind.
Thought For The Day
“The check of a first-rate intelligence is the flexibility to carry two opposed concepts in thoughts on the identical time and nonetheless retain the flexibility to operate.”
— F. Scott Fitzgerald