Read & Score an Engineer Report

Introduction

Use of the spreadsheet “Engineer Report Checklist” is hereby granted to designated recipients including the American Policyholder Association. This guide is intended to be used in conjunction with the APA Engineer Report Evaluation Program (AEREP) (available at apassociation.org/report-eval/) and the APA Engineer Research & Complaint Portal (apassociation.org/apa-engineer-research-complaint-portal/)

Frequently, an insurance company will hire an outside engineering firm to evaluate a damaged property to determine causation of loss. During the claims process, the interests of the insurance company and the policyholder can be considered "adverse" and there is a possibility of bias on the part of insurance company employees or vendors toward the insurer that hires and pays them.

The American Policyholder Association has received increasing complaints of claims being denied payment by insurance companies citing the findings of an engineer's report as the reason for full or partial denial. While most engineers practice their profession in an honest, trustworthy manner, there have been instances of reports being prepared (or changed after the fact) that contain violations of engineering board ethics standards and even outright criminal fraud. An engineer report prepared at the request of an insurer must be evaluated thoroughly by someone familiar with reputable engineer methodology and the facts of the project. Contractors, public adjusters, and attorneys must become practiced at reading engineer reports. If you can't do it, get a reputable engineer on board.

Tips Recommended by Insurance Claim Experts:

If your insurer assigns an engineer (or other expert) to your claim:

Request in writing for your insurance company to provide you with the specific language of the expert's assignment: exactly what is the expert assigned to do in your home and for what purpose.
Notify your insurer in writing that they are to provide you with a copy of the expert's report.
Contact the assigned engineering firm immediately and give them written notification (and CC the insurer) that:
- An appointment is required to inspect your property.
- You request a copy of the assigned engineer's CV/Bio listing all qualifications, education and license numbers.
- Your Contractor, Public Adjuster. or Attorney will be present to monitor the inspection.
- The entire inspection will be video recorded.

Do not allow anyone on your property until they have first given you a business card and shown you legal identification confirming they are the person on the card. Note: As part of your insurance contract, you have the "Duty to Cooperate" with the insurer's efforts to investigate and adjust your claim. Be pleasant and cooperative. Do not interfere with the inspection in anyway. Some inspectors will have questions for you. Because of your duty to cooperate, it is best that you answer those questions to the best of your ability. If you have a representative (attorney, public adjuster, etc) have them inform the inspector that you are happy to answer any questions, and if the inspector will submit the questions to your representative, they will ensure that they are answered in a thorough and timely manner.

A WORD ON PEER REVIEW

Peer Review is a process where an inspecting engineer's report is reviewed by others at the engineering firm who may not have physically inspected the property. Significant changes may be made to the report. Changes may also be made by others involved in your claim which can dramatically impact the outcome of your claim. While most companies will try to suppress the original report, it can be extremely helpful to get a copy. If you have an adverse claim experience, you should request from the engineering firm, your insurer, and even have your Public Adjuster or Attorney attempt to get a copy.

THE AEREP ANALYSIS TOOL

The purpose of this analysis tool is to help you read the engineer report and point you to the areas where APA members have reported bias-related problems in the past. When appropriate, it will also help evaluate the report for referral to the American Policyholder Association (APA) for possible licensing board violations or criminal fraud. Fraud happens, and this tool can help prevent, expose, and potentially stop insurer-side fraud.

It can also assist you by confirming the damages and proceeding with assisting your customer. It may tell you that you must do further investigation or that your client needs to retain their own engineer.

The program is part of a simple decision tree in a claims process. Answering the questions in the program generates an analysis of the completeness and objectivity of the engineer report.

Initially review is by the insured, the contractor, and his or her manufacturer representative or specialist. If help is needed, it may also be reviewed by an experienced public adjuster, a trusted consulting engineer, or perhaps by an experienced first party claims plaintiff attorney. Ultimately, if conditions are met, it may involve reporting to the engineer's licensing board disciplinary committee or the APA Special Investigations Unit (SIU) for investigation and possible referral to criminal prosecutors.

Disagreement does not necessarily mean ethics violation or fraud. While you may not like the engineer's findings, that does not mean that he or she did anything wrong. AEREP is merely a tool to indicate areas that should be further investigated to uncover possible issues. As part of that process you may wish to get a second opinion from your own engineer, or retain a professional advocate.

Just reviewing the engineer report does not require understanding the policy. When someone is added who can also review the applicable insurance policy, the review becomes part of the overall claim handling procedure. That means knowing an experienced public adjuster or first party claims attorney. If you don't know a trustworthy engineer, they can recommend one to you.

Breaking Down The Engineer Report

We recommend you find trustworthy associates in your industry to be able to more fully assist Policyholders.

The parts of the Engineer Report may be broken down into several parts:

A. Report
Introduction, background, assignment, building location, and weather data.
B. Inspection
Who, what, when, and photos
C. Investigation
Damages and causes
D. Focus
Reveals bias, out-come-oriented approach, or whether proper codes are mentioned and whether the policy is quoted by the Engineer.
E. Conclusion
Causation and recommended repairs
F. Summary Score
Totals the positives and negatives for a relative picture of how the Engineer did his or her job. With continued use, the score reveals whether the engineer overcame bias and did their job professionally. It is informative for comparison purposes.

AEREP is an interactive online program. You must register for use and upload the engineer report. All information is 100% secure and confidential. You will be emailed an anonymous report number and have a dashboard to manage the reports you have analyzed. The program itself is a series of questions that guide you through the engineer report, focusing on potential problem areas.

You may choose from two modes; "Preliminary Diagnosis" and "Full Diagnosis". Answer each relevant yes/no question and leave blank the ones that are not relevant or you don't know the answer to; Do not answer them. Each question has a pop-up explanation that you can access by clicking on the information icon. As you answer the questions, you will be alerted to possible action and with whom that action should focus.

You must answer the questions accurately. The more accurate your answers are, the more useful the AEREP tool will be.

Whether you answer Y or N does not mean it is a positive or negative result. Some Y answers are negative outcomes and some N answers are positive. Again, it is recommended to leave the answer field blank if you do not know the answer to a given question.

Be sure to answer questions honestly and professionally, Do not allow possible frustrations to cloud your integrity or adversely skew the AEREP results. As all information is confidential, do not circulate your reports outside of the team of professionals assisting on the claim, or the APA reporting/investigative team.

Once your analysis is submitted, you will receive a confidential email with an anonymous report number. This output summary will contain a listing of all red flags produced in your answers, an explanation of why each is an issue, and a possible course of action to pursue.

Professionals can use AEREP to analyze past reports already in your files. You may be amazed by the results. Please use the feedback survey to alert us to possible ways to improve the program and further benefit policyholders.

A WORD ON BIAS

Bias exists on all sides and can influence not only the results of a report prepared by an engineer for the insurance company, but also the results of this analysis of that report.

While you may feel you have a vested interest in the results, it is important that you put your own bias aside when inputting your answers to the checklist. Answer all questions in a fair and honest manner. When all sides strive to overcome bias, it serves to benefit individual policyholders and leads to more efficient insurance markets for everyone.

The score total is relative for comparison with other reports. It will aid further professional, civil, or legal consideration. It will also build a database of engineer reports that have been reviewed by someone who saw the loss site. This will be invaluable in assisting consumers during the insurance claims process.

Our thanks to American Policyholder Association’s Doug Quinn and Heather Shapter for their unceasing efforts to help all of us and our clients. APA Board Advisors and APA Professional Members make it possible.

Don Wood, PA, ACA, ASPE
(800) 803-9776

Board Advisor: American Policyholder Association
Board Advisor: American Adjuster Association

ABOUT THE APA

The American Policyholder Association is a non-profit 501c4 watchdog organization that promotes integrity, honesty and best practices in the property loss adjustment sector of the insurance industry.

The APA is primarily focused on protecting consumers from insurer fraud and professional licensing violations which occur during the claims process and also can be rampant after Natural Disasters.

The APA is comprised of property owner policyholders, non-profit organizations, and advocates whose mission it is to provide aid to property owners seeking benefits at the time of loss. The APA has been active in individual claims and natural disasters all over the country. We work in conjunction with Attorneys General, Prosecutors, and Licensing Disciplinary Boards in our Consumer Protection mission.
JOIN THE APA FOR FREE
APASSOCIATION.ORG/JOIN

"A Consumer's Guide to the American Policyholder Association", "Tips to Avoid Insurer Fraud After Natural Disasters", "The APA Carrier Contact Protocol Guide", "A Consumer's Guide to Self-Advocating in an Insurance Dispute" and "The APA Engineer Research and Complaint Portal" available at
apassociation.org/resources

Download PDF

Continue

Register your account?

You must register to use program. There is no cost & your information will be kept strictly confidential. The APA does not release user info & you will receive no marketing or advertising contact.

Login

CONFIDENTIAL: This comparative analysis form is provided for your use by the APA. All information provided will be kept secure and confidential. You may use it in its original form, but do not alter, copy, or republish without written permission from author Don Wood. Complete the form and upload the Engineer Report to the APA portal.

Read & Score an Engineer Report

Logout

Current File

Engineer

Property Owner

Co Owner

Are you the Property owner?

Yes

Insert Y or N in the "Y/N"column. Leave Blank if Unknown.

If Negatives appear excessive or fraud suspected, refer to APA.

Report		"Y/N"	Action	Engage
If the insurer assigned an engineer to inspect the property, make sure you get a copy of the report. The insurer may resist sending the report, but you should insist on obtaining a copy. This report can be critical to the overall disposition of claim payment.. 1. Did you receive an Engineer/Expert Report? Request any Engineer Report If the Insurer assigned an Engineer, always request a copy of the report. A digital copy is fine, especially with color photos.	Y ? N	Unk	Insurer
The inspecting engineer creates a report which is then forwarded to his firm and then to the carrier. Many engineering firms will use a process called “Peer Review” where changes are made to the report. The inspecting engineer must approve these changes and add his signature and seal. Request the original report from the inspecting engineer so you it can be compared to the final report sent to the policyholder by the insurance co. Oftentimes it can be difficult, if not impossible to obtain a copy of the original report, but sometimes the inspecting engineer may provide if asked properly or your attorney may be able to obtain copy. Always ask, since reports have been found to have been significantly altered (even criminally) to eliminate covered damages.. 2. Do you have Original and Final Reports? Original vs Final Reports Request report from the Engineer - the "Original" report, and request the report from the Insurer - ther "Final" report. "Y" for both receeived, "N" for one or None receeived.	Y ? N	Unk	Insurer
Read every word of both reports to find any differences. Compare the two reports word by word to detect any changes made. If they disagree, especially if damage reported in the original report was subsequently removed, save both reports for possible referral to APA.. 3. Are the Reports identical? Reports Identical? Read every page and compare every word of both reports for alterations or changes. Save both versions.	Y ? N	Unk	APA
Check signatures against each other and any correspondence. You can see if they appear similar to the naked eye, and you may even want to engage the services of handwriting analysis expert or software. There are multiple signature comparison & verification services available online. If a different person signed the report or they don't match, refer to APA.. 4. Do the signatures appear to match? Signatures Compare the signature on the Final report with signatures on the Original report and letters. Are they signed, did the same engineer sign them, and do the signatures appear to match? In any case, preserve the reports.	Y ? N	Unk	APA
Check your State Board of Engineers for current license status of Engineer in the state where the loss occurred. Engineers cannot perform professional engineering services in a given state unless they are licensed in that state. If you haven’t already verified, you can double check here: https://apassociation.org/list-of-engineering-boards-in-each-state/ If the engineer is not listed in the loss state, submit a complaint to the Engineering Board in the state where the loss occurred by using the APA Engineer Complaint Portal link at the top of this email.. 5. Licensing and credentials verified? Licensing? Is the Engineer licensed in the state where the loss occurred? List of Boards	Y ? N	Unk
Each Report must have an Engineer Seal affixed to the signature page. The seal and signature must be that of the actual inspecting engineer who visited the loss property. Misuse of the seal, or failure to apply it where required, is one of the most common complaints engineer licensing boards process. If the seal is not attached or it is not that of the inspecting engineer, refer to the APA Engineer Complaint Portal link at the top of his email.. 6. Engineer seal affixed to their report? Engineer Seal Is the report sealed with the seal of an Engineer? The seal will be on the signature page.	Y ? N	Unk	APA
A property address error may mean there are additional buildings on the policy, or there may be an error by the agent who wrote the policy. Compare the loss property address on the engineer report with the address listed on the policy declarations page schedule of properties. These should all match. Verify with the policyholder and the Agent. This could also be a possible indicator of a cut & paste report used from a different property. Research the address listed on the engineer report to see if that property was involved in previous claim where an engineer was used. Was it the same engineer, or the same firm? If so, report to the APA. If not, either the Engineer needs to issue a correction, or perhaps you have another building to inspect.. 7. Property Loss Address Accurate? Loss Address Verify the Loss Address provided by your client against the address on the Declarations Page, Schedule of Properties, and the Engineer Report. They should all match. If no, this is a possible indicator of a “cut & paste” report. Research address listed to see if that policyholder is also involved in a claim.	Y ? N	Unk	Insurer
Compare the loss date provided by the insured with the loss date selected by the adjuster or engineer. They should all match. A different Date of Loss chosen by the Engineer may mean he is being prompted to mislead the Insured. Verify with the Insured and the Insurer’s Adjuster if necessary or speak to an Expert or Public Adjuster. Eyewitnesses can also make a written statement as to the date they observed the event.. 8. Property Loss Date Accurate? Loss Date Compare the Loss Date provided by the Insured or Contractor with the Loss Date selected by the Adjuster and the Engineer. They should all match.	Y ? N	Unk	Insured
Are the weather events cited in the report accurate as to type and date? If the engineer cites a weather report with a different date or type of event, you must investigate to determine which is the truth. Confirm the DOL (Date of Loss) with the Insured. Obtain your own weather report or consider hiring a forensic meteorologist. Physical damage trumps radar images, but weather reports help.. 9. Weather citations pertinent and accurate? Weather Reports If the Engineer cites a weather report with a different date or type of event, you must determine which is accurate. Or are the citations a distraction from the actual events at the loss site?	Y ? N	Unk	Insured
Each state licensing board maintains a record of disciplinary action against its member Engineers. Some are trivial and some are serious. Know who the Insurer sent to do the inspection. You can research the inspecting engineer’s disciplinary record (if any) by scrolling down to the relevant state on the APA Engineer Board Data Base: https://apassociation.org/list-of-engineering-boards-in-each-state/ If there are prior violations of ethics, refer the report to APA.. 10. Clean Engineer Board Disciplinary Record? Clean Record Disciplinary actions are published by engineer boards and may be available for review. Research	Y ? N	Unk	APA
Does it look like "copy and paste" work, or does it reflect the construction method/materials & loss conditions specific to the site? Does it reflect sufficient time and data to be genuine? If not, refer to the APA.. 11. Engineer Report appears specific to the loss? Does it look like Does it look like "copy and paste" work, or does it reflect the loss conditions specific to the site? Does it reflect sufficient time and data to be genuine?	Y ? N	Unk	APA

Report		Total	Positive	Unknown	Negative
Report Score		11	0	11	0

Report		"Y/N"	Action	Engage
If the report doesn’t appear to contain enough data and photos to be originally prepared in relation to the property in question, investigate if it’s modified from another report or a cut & paste report. If so, notify the APA.. 1. Report appears specific to the loss? Specific Report Does the report contain enough data and photos to be originallhy prepareded for the loss in question, or does it appear to be a "cut and paste" generic report without real details?	Y ? N	Unk
Did the Engineer allow enough time to see the entire damaged area of the structure? Did he/she take samples or do destructive testing? Did he skip any damaged areas? If inspection and subsequent report are incomplete, he/she may have made up their mind before the inspection. If this produced an inaccurate report, it could be the result of bias and should be reported to the engineers licensing board via the APA Complaint Portal.. 2. Inspected loss thoroughly? Thorough Did the Engineer spend adquate time on the inspection to have thoroughly investigated the site and the cause of the loss? Did he or she personally inspect all portions of the damage site?	Y ? N	Unk
Did someone observe the Engineer photographing damaged areas as well as undamaged areas? If they aimed their camera away from the visible damages, you have a problem. This would be an APA referral. Make sure you have pictures of damage from many different angles and preferably time/date stamped prior to or same date as engineer inspection.. 3. Photographed the damages? Photograph Damages? Did you observe the Engineer photographing the damaged areas of the site and damaged areas of each area?	Y ? N	Unk
Identify the actual construction type, manufacturers, and age of materials. Did the Engineer identify the components of the building such as types or brand of roofing, layers of roofing, etc.? If not this could be an attempt to reduce cost of replacement.. 4. Identified components and manufacturers? Identified Components Were roofing materials and manufacturers properly identified as to type and age? Were the materials identified actually the ones on the buildings?	Y ? N	Unk
In discussions onsite, did the Engineer describe what you were both seeing in terms of damages? This dialogue is specifically in relation to type and scope of damages and should be accurately described. Discussion on cause of damages comes later.. 5. Described loss and damage accuratly? Descriptions Accurate? This is the structure and the type and scope of damages - it should be accurately described. Cause of damages comes later.	Y ? N	Unk	Expert
Did the Engineer probe, inquire, and investigate? Or did he/she negotiate, speculate, and appear to advocate a pre-determined opinion? If the latter, this is an indicator of bias and perhaps steer the report toward a pre-determined conclusion of limited or no covered loss. The engineer is there to investigate, not negotiate or explain away damages you observe.. 6. Investigated rather than negotiated? Negotiated? The Engineer is there to investigate, not negotiate or explain away what you see. Were they bargaining with you, or probing the site and damage?	Y ? N	Unk
Did the Engineer appear objective or biased? Was he/she factual or opinionated? The statements made prior to during the investigation can reveal bias, as can the amount of time they spend there and the inclusion of facts in their report. Some bias is always present, but a professional overcomes bias to do a proper report.. 7. Appeared unbiased? Bias? The statements made prior to during the investigation can reveal bias, as can the amount of time they spend there and the inclusion of facts in their report. Some bias is always present, but a professional overcomes bias to do a proper report.	Y ? N	Unk

Report		Total	Positive	Unknown	Negative
Inspection Score		7	0	7	0

Report		"Y/N"	Action	Engage
Did all the damages observed at the site make it into the report? If not, the Insurer will use their inadequate report to make a complete Estimate of Damages that could be used to underpay the policyholder. Compare your thorough analysis of damages to the observations listed in report.. 1. Documented all the damages? Documented Damage? Did the damages that were inspected find their way into the Report issued by the Engineer?	Y ? N	Unk
Did the photos of damages taken at the site make it into the report? If photos of undamaged areas were included, but some or all photos of damaged areas were omitted, this is a clear referral to the APA.. 2. Photos showed the damages? Photos of Damage Did the photos taken at the site find their way into the report? Were undamaged areas included and damaged areas omitted?	Y ? N	Unk	APA
Did the Engineer state the Cause of Loss accurately or speculate about some other event or time? References witnesses, police reports, and weather reports, as well as accounts of maintenance, pictures reflecting the condition of the structure prior to the loss.. 3. Cause of Loss accurate? Accurate Causation? Did the Engineer cite the Cause of Loss that resulted in the Damage? Or did he or she cite a different Cause from your observations and common sense?	Y ? N	Unk
If there were several causes of damage, some covered and some uncovered, did he/she name the primary cause of loss? Get help from a professional such as a Public Adjuster or Attorney if needed.. 4. Cited Primary Cause of Loss? Primary Cause If more than one Cause of Loss was cited, did the Engineer cite the 'proximate and immediate' Cause? The phrase 'But for the ______ ' may help you - 'Yes, the roof had wear and tear, but except for the hail that happened last week it would not now be'	Y ? N	Unk
Onsite or in the Report, did the Engineer mention Building Codes? If not, the Estimate to follow by the Insurer may not mention them either. There are frequent reports of carriers prescribing repairs that are not consistent with local building codes. Be prepared to estimate the damage using Codes that the Insurer ignored.. 5. Referred to building codes? Codes? Building Codes must be considered for repairs or replacements. Did the Engineer reference Codes at all?	Y ? N	Unk
In the Report, did the Engineer cite the proper Building Codes and apply them to damages for use by estimators and builders? Be prepared for them to misquote the Code or to cite the wrong code: these have been reported as common occurrences. Pay attention if they cite the Existing Building Code and be aware that it refers to the International Building Code.. 6. Cited building codes correctly? Correct Codes? Did the Engineer cite the correct codes and apply them to the damage for use by Estimators and Builders?	Y ? N	Unk	Expert
Onsite or in the Report, did the Engineer mention the Manufacturer Recommendations for repairs? The IBC says the contractor "SHALL follow manufacturer recommendations." so they must be adhered to. If the engineer did not cite them at all, this is an incomplete report that may influence the carrier to underpay the claim and result in the policyholder receiving substandard repairs.. 7. Cited manufacturer recommendations? Manufacturer? Codes refer to Manufacturer Recommendations, that must be adjured to in order to comply with Codes. Did the Engineer cite them at all?	Y ? N	Unk	Expert
Did the Report recommend the proper scope and method of repair? The GC is usually an Expert on proper Codes for repair or reconstruction. If not, get another Expert to consult with the GC and Insured, and make sure your Estimate is prepared according to Code.. 8. Recommended an appropriate repair? Appropriate Repair? Did the Engineer recommend an appropriate repair for the type and scope of damage?	Y ? N	Unk	Expert
Did the Engineer recommend or engage a specialist for investigation, causation, or additional testing? This could be an Electrical Engineer after a lightning strike or an HVAC Engineer after a hail loss. Structural Engineers are vital if a building is racked or structural integrity possibly compromised. Be aware that most Engineers are not Experts. A Manufacturer’s engineer is an Expert. Experienced GCs may be experts in their field of work. Be sure to consult an expert where necessary.. 9. Recommended needed specialty engineers? Specialty Engineer? Did the Engineer recommend a specialist for Investigation or Causation to follow his Inspection? This could be an Electrical Engineer after a lightning strike or an HVAC Engineer after a hail loss. Structural Engineers are vital if a building is racked or	Y ? N	Unk	Engineer
Did the Engineer order or perform a core test? Infrared survey? Materials testing?. Were Samples taken? Where are they now? Were they ever sent to a Lab? If so, request a copy of all results.. 10. Performed needed destructive testing? Destructive Testing','tipcontent Did the Engineer order or perform a core test? Infrared survey? Materials testing? If so, request a copy of the results.	Y ? N	Unk	Expert
Did you receive copies of any testing or lab results? These may reveal things useful for the Loss and for the Estimate of proper repairs. Request results from the engineer and Insurer.. 11. Copied you on lab reports? Lab Reports Have you received Lab Reports on all tests?	Y ? N	Unk	Insurer

Report		Total	Positive	Unknown	Negative
Investigation Score		11	0	11	0

Report		"Y/N"	Action	Engage
Engineers are not Insurance Adjusters nor are they Attorneys. They should be investigating the loss and damages, not the insurance policy. They are fact finders. If the Engineer quotes the policy onsite or in a Report, it is a potential problem. It means he/she may have been assigned with a pre-determined outcome. In addition, if the Insured and his/her GC found Covered Damages on a Covered Date of Loss, and the Engineer finds only Damages that are Excluded in the Policy, you should refer the Report to the APA... 1. Cited policy exclusions or limitations? Cited Policy Exclusions Engineers are not Insurance Adjusters nor are they Attorneys. They should be investigating the loss and damages, not the insurance policy. They are fact finders.	Y ? N	Unk	APA
If an Engineer cites "Concurrent Causation," he or she may be citing and applying or even interpreting the insurance policy. This is a serious red flag for anyone involved in the claims process. Even if the citation is accurate, the interpretation of the policy is inappropriate. If the Report cites multiple causes, some excluded and some covered in the policy, an experienced PA or Attorney may need to be consulted, along with an Expert. Concurrent Causation can hang on one word in a policy. Get an Expert involved.. 2. Cited concurrent causation? Concurrent Causation If an Engineer cites "Concurrent Causation," he or she is citing and applying or even interpreting the insurance policy. This is a serious red flag for anyone involved in the claim process. Even if the citation is accurate, the interpretation of the policy	Y ? N	Unk	PA
Code Upgrade is a policy provision, not a Building Code provision. Its mention by an engineer, for good or bad, is a red flag. Building Codes always apply and must be considered. Investigation and Estimation of a Loss should be determined by extent of damage, application of Codes and best practices, then the Policy is applied to determine Coverage, ie., who pays.. 3. Cited policy on code upgrade? Code Upgrade? Code Upgrade is a policy provision, not a Building Code provision. Its mention for good or bad can require examination.	Y ? N	Unk	PA
How is the Engineer even aware of the policy period? He/she is not qualified to discuss the policy, nor should they research coverage prior to inspection. His/her focus should be on the damages. This may reveal bias or intent to assist insurer in claim denial.. 4. Found damages ONLY outside policy period? Policy Period Why is the Engineer even aware of the Policy Period?	Y ? N	Unk
All structures have wear and tear, even new ones due to the construction process. If Wear and Tear is cited as a Cause of Loss when you saw other causes of loss, this requires thoughtful handling and possible referral. Wear and Tear results in the application of Depreciation. If there was a Covered Cause of Loss during the Policy Period, Wear and Tear does not disqualify the claim. It is a Condition of settlement, not an Exclusion. 5. Found all damages were wear and tear? Wear and Tear? All structures have wear and tear, even new ones due to the construction process. If Wear and Tear is cited as a Cause of Loss when you saw other causes of loss, this requires thoughtful handling and possible referral.	Y ? N	Unk	PA
Depreciation is the application of Wear and Tear to an item due to obsolescence, weathering, deterioration, use, or age. It is not a Cause of Loss, but rather a condition of settlement. Depreciation cannot be Cause of Loss. This is an improper citation showing bias by an Engineer, since Depreciation is a condition of how settlement payments are allocated. 6. Found depreciation as a cause of damage? Depreciation Depreciation is the application of Wear and Tear to an item due to obsolensce, weathering, deterioration, use, or age. It is not a Cause of Loss, but rather a condition of settlement. Answer Y or N.	Y ? N	Unk	PA
A common substitution for a cause of loss on a hail damaged roof. The answer is to look at other parts of the roof for hail damage that are not near serviceable HVAC units or roof hatches. If hail damage is widespread, you have your answer. Foot traffic can actually be covered cause of loss, whether accidental or vandalism. When found during investigation of a hail event, it may be a distraction used to improperly deny otherwise valid hail claims. This may be a call for a referral to the APA Engineer Complaint Portal.. 7. Found ONLY foot traffic instead of hail? Foot Traffic A common substitution for a cause of loss on a hail damaged roof. The answer is to look at other parts of the roof for hail damage that are not near serviceable HVAC units or roof hatches. If hail damage is widespread, you have your answer.	Y ? N	Unk	PA
If an Engineer cites a cause that is not covered, and ignores a cause that is covered, there is a serious problem. The contractor or public adjuster should consider this carefully. Wind and Hail are found simultaneously in severe thunderstorms. This may be a distraction from an otherwise valid claim. Except in coastal regions where "Wind Only" coverages are sold, Wind is a covered Cause of Loss in most policies. So, whether wind or hail, the roof may be damaged. The scope and repairability of the roof determine the outcome.. 8. Found ONLY wind damage on a hail claim? Damage Coverage If an Engineer cites a cause that is not covered, and ignores a cause that is covered, there is a serious problem. The contractor or public adjuster should consider this carefully.	Y ? N	Unk	PA
A "good and workmanlike manner" is a description of how a tradesman performs his work. It can be recognized after the job by inspection. But it may or may not be the Cause of Loss of the Damages being inspected. It may be found as well as a covered cause. Defective installation or a defective product that was functioning prior to the loss, combined with a covered Cause of Loss, results in a claim under a policy. Consult a Public Adjuster or Attorney as needed.. 9. Find ONLY defective workmanship? Workmanship A "good and workmanlike manner" is a description of how a tradesman performs his work. It can be recognized after the job by inspection. But it may or may not be the Cause of Loss of the Damages being inspected. It may be found as well as a covered cause	Y ? N	Unk	PA
Engineers have to make inspections of facts and determine causes. If they always "hedge their report" in favor of the carrier, be suspicious. In every case, by all parties involved, bias must be overcome in favor of the facts. Watch for this in the body of the Report and especially in the Conclusions. Sometimes the Engineer makes the case for the claim in the document, but refutes it in the Conclusions, where he/she inserts his/her opinions. This could be a referral to the APA.. 10. Hedged on issues detrimental to the carrier? Hedge on Carrier Engineers have to make inspections of facts and determine causes. If they always "hedge their report" in favor of the carrier, be suspicious.	Y ? N	Unk	APA
Similar to above, rather than be neutral or state the cause is indeterminate, the Engineer may always find against the Insured. Read the report to see if the Engineer appeared to be professional and overcame bias. Bias must be overcome in favor of the facts. Watch for this in the body of the Report and especially in the Conclusions. Sometimes the Engineer makes the case for the claim in the document, but refutes it in the Conclusions, where he/she inserts his/her opinions. Similar to above, rather than be neutral or state the cause is indeterminate, the Engineer may always find against the Insured. Analyze the report to confirm if the Engineer appeared to be professional and overcame bias. If not, this should be referred to the APA Engineer Complaint Portal.. 11. Hedged on issues beneficial to the Insured? Hedge against Insured Similar to above, rather than be neutral or state the cause is indeterminate, the Engineer may always find against the Insured. Read the report to see if the Engineer appeared to be professional and overcame bias.	Y ? N	Unk	APA

Report		Total	Positive	Unknown	Negative
Focus Score		11	0	11	0

Report		"Y/N"	Action	Engage
Are the Conclusions pertinent to the loss that was investigated, and do they accurately reflect what was observed on the site? If not, refer to the APA.. 1. Report original and accurate? Accurate Was the overall report fain and accurate?	Y ? N	Unk	APA
Was the report thorough enough for someone who had not visited the site to obtain a complete understanding of the facts of the loss? Is the report as a whole thorough? Did all pertinent facts make it into the Report? Compare with your own observations of damage to see what was omitted.. 2. Investigation thoroughly documented? Thorough Report Was the report thorough enough for someone who had not visited the site to obtain a complete understanding of the facts of the loss?	Y ? N	Unk
Were you convinced of the accuracy of the Engineer? Do the Conclusions match the observations, or are they a distraction, speculation, biased, or opinionated? Since many people don’t read a report thoroughly, but instead skip right to the Conclusions section, it is common for damage mentioned earlier in the report to be omitted from conclusions. This should be reported to the APA Engineer Complaint Portal.. 3. Conclusions appeared accurate? Conclusions Were you convinced of the accuracy of the Engineer?	Y ? N	Unk	APA
. 4. Conclusions appear to match observations? Conclusions Read the Observations section of the report. Is damage referenced consistent with the 'Conclusions' section? Did the engineer find covered damage in observations but state 'no damage' in 'conclusions'?	Y ? N	Unk	APA
Does the Engineer Report appear logical and reflect ordinary common sense? Is cause and effect tied together in a logical chain of events? Does the Conclusion make sense?. 5. Used logic and common sense? Logical Does the Engineer Report appear logical and reflect ordinary common sense?	Y ? N	Unk
Would another Engineer, who does not work for an Insurer or an Insured, after inspecting the loss and reading the Engineer Report on the Loss, agree with its conclusions? Would an Engineer not on the payroll of either party to the Insurance Claim agree or disagree with the Report Conclusions? While this may seem subjective, it is an indicator of how well the inspecting engineer overcame bias and answering this question will require you to overcome your own bias.. 6. Other Engineers would agree? Alternate Opinion Would another Engineer, who does not work for an Insurer or an Insured, after inspecting the loss and reading the Engineer Report on the Loss, agree with its conclusions?	Y ? N	Unk	Engineer

Report		Total	Positive	Unknown	Negative
Conclusions Score		6	0	6	0

Reference cells

Action	Parties
Insco	You
Request	Insurer
Caution	Insured
Refer	Insco Engr
Engage	SBE
Preserve	PA
OK	Engineer
Compare	Expert
Consult	DOI
Rebut	Insd Atty
Inquire	Architect
Close	Contractor
Reinspect	APA
	DOI
	Engr Board

Score Summary

Negative Scores Sections A thru E
Unknown Scores Sections A thru E
Positive Scores Sections A thru E

The score on this report is not definitive proof of engineering board license violations or criminal fraud, but merely an indicator of potential problems in a given report. Issues uncovered should be further investigated to determine if regulatory or legal action should be pursued. If your research uncovers that a violation occurred, you can report it to the following complaint systems:

For violation of honest, ethical practice of engineering:

The APA Engineer Complaint Portal

For Criminal Fraud (Intentional deception for profit or to avoid a loss):

The APA Fraud Reporting System

Report Tool Survey

We are continually looking to improve the quality of this program to serve you better. Please answer the four questions below and give us your feedback on how best to improve. Thank you.

Are You an APA Member?

How Did You Hear About this Program?

Word of Mouth

Online

Ease of Use

1 - Very Difficult

5 - Very Easy

Suggestions to Improve Program

Submit Survey

	Name	Main Id	Address	City	State	View

Read & Score an Engineer Report

Introduction

Tips Recommended by Insurance Claim Experts:

A WORD ON PEER REVIEW

THE AEREP ANALYSIS TOOL

Breaking Down The Engineer Report

A WORD ON BIAS

ABOUT THE APA

Register your account?

Login

Login

Read & Score an Engineer Report

Upload Engineer Report

Engineer

Property Owner

Co Owner

Your Relationship to Property owner

I - Report

Request any Engineer Report

Original vs Final Reports

Reports Identical?

Signatures

Licensing?

Engineer Seal

Loss Address

Loss Date

Weather Reports

Clean Record

Does it look like

II - Inspection

Specific Report

Thorough

Photograph Damages?

Identified Components

Descriptions Accurate?

Negotiated?

Bias?

III - Investigation

Documented Damage?

Photos of Damage

Accurate Causation?

Primary Cause

Codes?

Correct Codes?

Manufacturer?

Appropriate Repair?

Specialty Engineer?

Destructive Testing','tipcontent

Lab Reports

IV - Focus

Cited Policy Exclusions

Concurrent Causation

Code Upgrade?

Policy Period

Wear and Tear?

Depreciation

Foot Traffic

Damage Coverage

Workmanship

Hedge on Carrier

Hedge against Insured

V - Conclusions

Accurate

Thorough Report

Conclusions

Conclusions

Logical

Alternate Opinion

Reference cells

Score Summary

Report Tool Survey

Are You an APA Member?

How Did You Hear About this Program?

Ease of Use

Suggestions to Improve Program

Report