Another View: Proposed Florida Engineering Rules Would Slow Claims

This article appeared recently on Grindley’s Linkedin page. Republished here with permission.

For those working in property insurance, adjusting, and forensic engineering, a proposed Florida rule may have unintended consequences for how claims are investigated and processed. The Florida Board of Professional Engineers (FBPE) has considered a proposed rule (61G15-38) that, if passed, will regulate how engineers document evaluations of allegedly damaged structures.

At first glance, improving consistency in engineering reports sounds great. Heck, as a guy who has to review them myself, I know there are many ways they could be improved! But after reviewing the proposed rule carefully, I see that it would create unintended consequences for all stakeholders in a property insurance claim where a forensic engineering opinion is needed.

The proposed rule seeks to replace professional engineering judgment in the investigative process with a prescriptive checklist-style framework that includes rigid documentation requirements. At least in the humble opinion of this engineer, those changes will not improve the quality of the engineering analysis.

Stakeholders in an insurance claim rely on engineers precisely because these investigations require professional judgment and technical analysis that cannot be reduced to a checklist. They require a deep understanding of how building materials and structural systems respond to the forces imposed by both everyday use and extreme events, along with the ability of an ethical, unbiased professional to clearly communicate those findings so that informed decisions can be made.

More concerning, however, is the practical impact the rule would have on the time associated with investigating properties and preparing engineering reports. In post-catastrophe claim environments, that additional time creates a domino effect of negative consequences, including longer claim-processing times, higher claim-transaction costs, longer waits for policyholders, and ultimately bad feedback for everyone involved.

I recently prepared a technical critique of the proposed rule outlining these concerns in detail (The full critique is available here, on Grindley’s Linkedin page).

If you work in property insurance, adjusting, engineering, or construction consulting, I would be interested to hear your perspective, as would the FBPE.

Editor’s note: The board declined to adopt the new rule at its May meeting, but engineers have said the changes may be considered again in coming months.

Topics Florida Claims