Search
Close this search box.

Water, water everywhere… but is it fraud?

ruck (5)

Water, water everywhere… but is it fraud?

In many ways, water is the new fire when it comes to insurance fraud.

Insurance fraud, like other crimes, continues to evolve as fraudsters become more creative. Arson, the crime of intentionally and illegally setting fire to a building or other structure, has long worsened claims activity for property insurers. Today, in many ways, water is the new fire.

Previously, property owners might have ignited a fire for a remodel, to get out of their mortgage, or to collect a financial windfall from their insurance claim. Fires, especially arson for profit, created a higher risk because controlling fire is very difficult. When someone sets a building on fire, there’s a strong possibility that a firefighter or an innocent bystander could be injured. Water damage is easier to control, plus the risk of injury is much lower.

When commercial properties, such as hotels, office buildings and retail locations, experience water damage, including from malfunctions of sprinkler systems, it’s incumbent on independent insurance adjusters and claims professionals to look for suspicious indications. Unfortunately, it’s easy to cause water damage and it can be hard to prove that it has been intentionally caused.

Questions to ask

Water loss claims should be handled like any other claims, with the same attention to detail. The insurance industry has experts with years of experience and training to evaluate fire losses and establish the origins and causes of those losses. When it comes to water, it’s more difficult to make that determination, so insurance companies are sure to select the right experts — whether they’re plumbers or engineers.

Carriers also have to look at the history of the insured’s claims. Property owners who cause intentional water losses tend to have a past record of similar claims. Generally, when insureds cause the loss, the damage tends to be rapid and significant perhaps with the thought that it may help them get paid fairly quickly.

When evaluating a water loss — for a burst pipe or broken sprinkler system, for example — claims professionals should ask:

  • When did this happen?
  • How did it happen?
  • Are there before and after pictures?
  • What did that pipe look like before it burst?
  • Was the pipe manipulated to cause the damage?
  • Has the sprinkler system been properly maintained?
  • Are there signs of tampering?

Exaggerating losses

Claims professionals also should look for certain red flags that may indicate what the insurance industry refers to as “soft fraud.” That often occurs when insureds look for ways to increase the value of the claim, such as when the loss is less than the amount of the deductible.

Some questions to ask, which suggest further investigation may be warranted:

  • Is insured changing the details of the loss to cover their deductible.
  • Are they adding supplemental items to the list of damaged goods or inventory?
  • How long has the policy been in force?
  • Is it a newer policy, or is it about to expire or be canceled?
  • Is there a financial motive? For example, is the insured in financial distress?

Vendor fraud

It may be the vendor, not the insured, that commits the fraud. Before hiring restoration contractors or any other third party, insureds should contact their carrier. The insurance company may have a list of contractors that have been screened and vetted and may be able to submit documentation and invoices electronically.

Even when insureds work with restoration contractors that have been screened and vetted, they should ensure the costs are invoiced properly by confirming that the vendor is using the equipment that they’re billing for, which is another reason to take pictures early and often.

The key point for claims professionals to remember is not to hesitate to ask questions. When there are indicators that could suggest damage may have been intentional, they should get consider getting experts involved early in the process. They also should communicate with the insureds, so the reasons for investigating the claim are appropriately clear.

When the fraud team of the special investigation unit investigates a loss, it’s not always because they suspect fraud. Their goal is to protect the insured as well as the insurance company. Insurance fraud makes everyone’s rates go up. If it’s a legitimate loss, it’ll be validated and settled accordingly. Fraud hurts everybody.

Steve Jarrett, a former member of the Tampa, Florida, Police Department, is the National Director — Special Investigations, Westfield Insurance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts

Insurance-technology

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More
Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote