A considerate remark posted in response to yesterday’s submit, Engineering Requirements or Engineered Outcomes for Insurance coverage Corporations, raises a problem that deserves additional dialogue. The remark states:
Chip, that is the scrutiny this course of has wanted from the beginning, and the query you posed on the finish is the precise one.
A major challenge, among the many ones you raised, is that the rule displaces established consensus frameworks corresponding to ASTM E2713 with out clarification or justification. These are requirements developed via a balanced course of with broad skilled participation, and the rule replaces them with prescriptive mandates that strip engineers of the skilled judgment these frameworks are constructed on. Underneath the proposed guidelines, an engineer who applies sound reasoning to account for real-world situations would face self-discipline for deviating from a guidelines, not for producing dangerous work.
Moreover, the proposed mandates should not with out consequence. Downstream impacts may be simply foreseen: compliance prices that worth unbiased engineers out of the attain of the typical policyholder, and a regulatory framework that undercuts the courts gatekeeping operate. This dialog must occur within the open. Thanks for bringing this to the general public’s consideration.
For these unfamiliar with ASTM E2713, it’s not some obscure technical guide. It’s a extensively accepted guideline utilized by engineers to research constructing harm. At its core, it requires engineers to collect details, take into account a number of potential causes, check these prospects towards proof, after which attain conclusions grounded in science and statement. Importantly, it permits engineers to account for real-world situations, which embrace contemplating the getting old of supplies, prior repairs, set up variability, and the messy actuality of how constructions really carry out over time.
In different phrases, ASTM E2713 is just not a guidelines. It’s a disciplined mind-set. The priority raised by the commenter is that the proposed Florida guidelines seem to maneuver away from that versatile, judgment-based strategy and towards one thing much more inflexible. If true, that could be a important shift. When a regulatory framework replaces a consensus-based commonplace with out clearly explaining why the present commonplace is insufficient, it raises reputable questions on each goal and impact.
The problem is just not whether or not requirements ought to exist. After all they need to. The problem is whether or not these requirements information skilled judgment or substitute it.
Engineering, notably forensic engineering, is just not a mechanical train. Two buildings might look related however carry out very in another way underneath the identical storm situations. Wind doesn’t behave in neat, uniform patterns. Supplies degrade. Fasteners loosen. Repairs alter efficiency. A system constructed on inflexible mandates dangers ignoring these realities in favor of simplified assumptions.
On the identical time, it is very important acknowledge the opposite facet of the equation. The push for reform didn’t come up in a vacuum. There have been considerations about inconsistent experiences, unsupported conclusions, and, at instances, opinions that seem pushed extra by advocacy than evaluation. These considerations are actual and shouldn’t be dismissed.
A latest formal critique ready by Grindley Williams Engineering 1 reinforces many of those considerations and provides a degree of technical element that engineering regulators should take into account. In line with the Grindley Williams critique, the rule comprises “structural, definitional, and drafting deficiencies” that create ambiguity, impose impractical burdens, and produce unintended penalties. Extra importantly, it warns that the rule might “create enforcement publicity primarily based on procedural technicalities quite than substantive engineering misconduct” and “unduly constrain skilled engineering judgment.”
That could be a profound shift. The critique highlights at the least 5 points in regards to the proposed guidelines that go on to the guts of equity and accuracy in claims disputes. First, the rule repeatedly makes use of crucial phrases like “harm” and “harm analysis” with out defining them. That will sound like a drafting challenge, however it’s much more severe. If engineers can not clearly decide what’s being regulated, then compliance turns into subjective, and enforcement turns into inconsistent. In a litigation-driven atmosphere like insurance coverage claims, that form of ambiguity can simply be used as a weapon.
Second, the rule assumes harm exists. It requires documentation of “noticed and recorded harm,” with out addressing conditions the place no harm is discovered. The critique warns that this might discourage engineers from concluding that no harm exists as a result of such experiences is likely to be considered as noncompliant. That isn’t a minor challenge, however a structural bias towards discovering precise harm.
Third, the rule imposes in depth documentation and testing necessities which may be unimaginable in real-world situations. Engineers usually face restricted entry, lacking data, security constraints, and finances limitations. The critique notes that the rule fails to account for these realities, exposing engineers to disciplinary motion even after they conduct competent investigations underneath sensible constraints.
Fourth, the rule seems to mandate reliance on requirements and testing protocols that had been by no means designed for forensic harm evaluation. For instance, laboratory testing strategies developed for brand new development are being utilized to aged, in-service roofs—situations that engineers know are basically totally different. The critique particularly factors out that sure referenced assessments “don’t consider present subject situations” and should not designed to find out real-world harm.
Fifth, and maybe most troubling, the rule introduces obligatory procedural necessities that enhance price with out clear profit. The critique warns that compliance will “considerably enhance the time, price, {and professional} legal responsibility publicity” related to engineering experiences, resulting in larger prices for policyholders and decreased entry to unbiased consultants.
This ties instantly again to the commenter’s level in my weblog submit. If unbiased engineers are priced out of the market and changed by massive corporations that may take up compliance prices, the sensible impact is just not neutrality. It’s consolidation. And consolidation, in a claims atmosphere, tends to favor repeat gamers employed by the insurance coverage trade.
There may be additionally a deeper authorized challenge at play. The critique notes that the rule creates enforcement danger primarily based on whether or not an engineer adopted each procedural requirement quite than whether or not the engineering opinion is sound. That shifts the main focus away from substance and towards compliance. Within the courtroom, that issues. Courts are supposed to guage knowledgeable testimony primarily based on reliability, methodology, and credibility. If regulatory compliance turns into the dominant measure, we danger making a parallel system the place an opinion may be technically appropriate however nonetheless topic to self-discipline for failing to test each field.
That isn’t how fact is meant to be decided.
ASTM requirements had been developed via broad consensus for that cause. They information engineers with out changing their considering. They permit engineers to adapt to real-world situations quite than forcing actuality right into a inflexible framework.
The proposed rule, as at present drafted, dangers reversing that strategy. It replaces versatile, science-based reasoning with prescriptive mandates. It creates ambiguity the place readability is required. It will increase price the place entry needs to be protected. And it introduces the likelihood that engineers will probably be judged not by the standard of their evaluation, however by their adherence to a guidelines.
The remark that prompted this dialogue was precisely proper. This dialog must occur within the open. As a result of the query is not nearly engineering requirements. It’s about who controls the end result. That isn’t a theoretical concern. It’s a sensible one.
Thought For The Day
“In principle, there is no such thing as a distinction between principle and observe. In observe, there’s.”
— Yogi Berra
1 Formal Technical Critique of Proposed Rule, Chapter 61G15-38: Duty Guidelines of Skilled Engineers Regarding the Analysis of Broken Constructions. Grindley Williams Engineering. (March 2026).