A GUIDELINE FOR THE USE
OF ENGINEERS BY
CLAIMS MANAGERS AND ADJUSTERS

      As claims managers or adjusters you are expected to be able to respond to and solve many different

types of problems. Depending upon the claim, you may be required to solicit the services of other professionals such as private investigators, arson investigators, or engineers to help resolve problems. The purpose of this paper is to assist you in deciding when and how best to select and utilize engineers. I will also discuss what you should expect from the engineer, including cost.

II.  WHY YOU SHOULD USE AN ENGINEER

      Engineering is designated and officially referred to as one of the “learned professions”

as is law and medicine. Additionally, engineers are bound by a strict code of ethics in their

fields of practice. Because of this, society and, in particular, our court system recognizes

and respects the engineer as an individual who can render opinions on technical issues.

      Because of that recognition, and, of course depending upon the condition of the loss, an

engineer can be of benefit on a particular claim as follows:

      A. The engineer can provide a “different viewpoint”-a viewpoint which can be of very

      significant importance. Not only does the engineer view things from a technical perspective,

      but his experience with other problems may also be very valuable.

      B. The engineer is particularly well-suited to “independently establish elements of facts.”

      This may be achieved by investigation at the scene of the accident from photos and other

      evidence provided to the engineer or by laboratory tests conducted by the engineer. Establishing

      facts is one of the most important reasons to use and engineer.

      C. The engineer can “develop” and present “opinions.” From facts and in some situations

      even hearsay evidence, the engineer can form opinions which carry substantial weight either

      in court or in the settlement of a claim. Often, confrontations with a claimant

      can be avoided if an engineer is used in the area or issue of a potential dispute.

      D. The engineer can ”testify.” An engineer can almost always be qualified as an expert

     witness to testify in court. Just be sure the engineer that you use is “willing” to testify.

      E. “Economics”. Obviously, economics is a consideration. You need to determine if you

      should pay the claim, deny the loss, or subrogate. The engineer’s actions can assist you

      in making these decisions and can help protect your company’s future economic position

      on a particular claim.

Ill.   WHEN YOU SHOULD USE AN ENGINEER

      Obviously, your company policy may dictate or restrict the use of outside professionals,

including engineers. Some insurance companies have monetary ceilings at which point an

engineer is called in. In many cases it is left up to individual adjusters (perhaps with supervisor

approval) to decide at what point to ask for engineering. In any event, the larger the loss the more

important advice from an engineer becomes. Generally, losses under a certain amount are not

investigated by engineers.

      Besides the “dollar value” of the loss, there must be a “technical issue needing to be

resolved or better defined. Consideration of the situation can assist in deciding when to or

when not to use an engineer.

      A. STORMS (Winds, tornado, ice or snow)

            Most frequently the above conditions result in engineering questions regarding a buildings

            structure – in other words, a damage assessment. However, damage validation may be

            necessary, that is determining if the storm did the damage of if the damage existed before

            the storm.

      B. FIRE

          1.  Arson:  In fire loss cases where arson is suspected, it is essential that trained fire

                cause and origin experts investigate the loss and associated factors such as motive. This

                is “not” a task for the engineer but should be accomplished by experienced and trained

                investigators in the field of fire investigation. However, following the fire

                investigator’s initial on-scene examination, the services of an engineer may need to

                be enlisted for one or more of the following reasons:

a.  Arson is clearly indicated by positive samples and other methods.  In this case,

      an engineer can eliminate other possible fire causes that involve equipment or

      appliances of a technical nature-gas and electrical systems, for example. Testimony

      by a registered engineer eliminating other possible sources could make or break an

      arson case.

b.  Arson is found not to be a cause.  The fire investigator may be able to

      determine the origin or approximate origin but not the exact cause. In this case,

      the on-scene assistance of an engineer is needed. It is possible for the investigator

      to send suspected equipment and photographs to the engineer’s lab for examination;

      however, the on-scene examination is much more preferable.

c.  Chemical or metallurgical testing is necessary.  The engineer may have the

      capability to do these tests within his organization, or he should certainly be capable

      of seeing that the correct tests are conducted at some other lab.

 2.  Accidental:  If the fire is clearly accidental, there will still be a cause. If it is clearly

      not the fault of the insured, some other party may have caused the fire, and further

      investigation should be initiated. Examples of other parties that may have caused the

      fire are electrical contractors, manufactures, general contractors, and repairmen. Even

      in cases that may appear at first to be acts of God, such as those involving lightning,

      you should consider if some action of another party made a lightning strike more

      probable or more severe.

3. Assessment:  Obviously, fire damage assessment may be necessary, particularly on

      metal frame buildings, to determine the amount of damage to and safety of the building.

      This can be very important in determining the size of the loss as well as providing an

      official record of the damage. Sometimes, claims are made later for more damage than

      actually occurred.

      C. VEHICLE

            1. Fire: An automobile fire is a very difficult problem because of the extensive

     damage that usually results. However, in many cases it is possible to locate the cause

     even When the failure was within the fuel system. Engineering consulting in the case of

     auto fires should be limited, because the loss is usually small.  An engineer need  

     not be involved in those cases where arson is strongly suspected.

           2.  Collisions: Depending on their severity and magnitude, most collisions certainly

     involve an engineer at the earliest possible date. An engineer skilled in the mechanics

      of vehicle collisions and auto reconstruction can estimate vehicle velocities from skid

     marks, distances thrown or skidded from impact, and other data. He can tell if a

     headlight, brake light, or turn light was on or off at time of impact. Depending upon

     the validity of the data, it is also possible to reconstruct the events prior to the    

     accident.  This work can sometimes be very costly, involving on-scene measurements,

     numerous calculations, and sometimes special on-scene or laboratory testing.

      D.  STRUCTURAL

             Besides the structural damages resulting from storms or fire, all kinds of structural

              or foundation problems can develop from poor construction or design. Poor

              construction can also cause settling and slab problems if geotechnical investigation was

              inadequate or not conducted at all prior to building. Structural problems can and do include

              residential, commercial, civil, marine, space and aviation structures.  Structural

              failures are often a result of poor design or construction, although a minor force may have

              precipitated the failure. Unfortunately, when policies are written, design or construction

              problems often exist at that time.

        E.  OTHER DAMAGES

This category covers all those other things that happen including unplanned events or

accidents. Perhaps an example listing is appropriate with the understanding that some of

the following could be included in one or more of the categories discussed previously.

The following list of accidents, while not all-inclusive, points out instances when the

use of an engineer should be considered:

1. Material handling, dropped equipment, broken or failure of lifting equipment.

2. Failed equipment allowing other damage.

3. Explosions.

4. Oil field accidents

5. Aircraft

6. Bridges

7. Failed components.

      F.  PERSONAL INJURY

Accidents that involve personal injury are a special category. The property damage in such

cases may be small or large. In fact, many times the property damage can be zero and

still involve and injury or fatality. Personal injury accidents also involve relatives and very

often attorneys. Personal injury accidents can involve various theories of law such as

workman’s compensation law, product liability, implied or express warranty, rescue

doctrine, negligence, gross negligence, and others.  These laws vary from state to state.  For

the workman’s compensation carrier, it is often advantageous to work together, through

local counsel with the injured party’s attorney.  There are several advantages to this

approach: the plaintiff’s attorney shared some of the engineering expenses; the carrier

stays informed as to the status of the case; and a clear measure of protection is afforded by

staying closely associated with the plaintiff.  There are many other fine points to consider

for any given situation, and local counsel should be consulted on each case.

IV.  WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE ENGINEER

A.    If the engineer is a full-time independent or forensic engineer, expect prompt service

(same day or next day if the problem is urgent).  If the engineer is a part-time forensic

engineer, such as university professors, do not expect fast response every time.

B.    Expect a verbal report and cost estimate after his initial visit.  Expect him to

recommend other specialists, as necessary.

C.    Expect some kind of report in ten days or less.  If additional work is needed, this may

take the form of a verbal report or a status report.  If no additional work is required,

expect a final report in ten days or less.

D.    Expect quality professional work.  Above all, the report should be understandable.

If you have questions, ask the engineer to supplement his report.  He may have used

terms or language not understandable to everyone.  Don’t hesitate to send the report

back and ask that it be redone. 

E.     Provide feedback to the engineer.  If his work is good, let him know about it and

 handle his invoice promptly.  Likewise, let him know about any problems.

F.      Expect the engineer to alert you on subrogation or other legal possibilities.  The

  forensic engineer is not a lawyer, but he is exposed to more technical cases than

  most attorneys are.  In this respect, you should expect him to alert you on legal

  matters for your consideration.

PREPARED BY:

FRANKLIN H. JOHNSON, CSP, P.E.

PRESIDENT, SEAL CORPORATION

SECOND EDITION, 2024

COPYRIGHT 1984 by SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND LABORATORIEES, CORP.

TYLER, TEXAS 75707

All rights reserved.  No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any

electronic or mechanical means, including photocopying, recording, or by and information storage

and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author.