The Investigation
The Insured
Do two or more of these apply to your claim?
Click a piece of the jigsaw to reveal the risks
The Insured
Are there financial problems?
Are there financial problems?
Have two or more claims been
made within the last 5 years?
Has cover been incepted or has
the level of cover increased
recently?
Is the insured being difficult?
Is the insured refusing an
inspection?
The Insured
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Is the insured applying pressure for an early settlement or cash payment?
This might suggest a financial motive for bringing a suspicious claim, particularly if other financial difficulties have been identified.
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Close scrutiny should be given to the sum claimed by an insured in order to consider whether there has been any exaggeration of the claim.
Any inconsistencies or discrepancies in supporting documents should be identified.
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claim been made within the last five years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
The Investigation
Was the size and location of the area damaged by the fire consistent with the loss of the inventory / stock / items being claimed for?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has relevant evidence and/or documentation in support of the claim been destroyed by the fire?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has the property undergone significant alterations?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Is there any evidence of the property being used for an unusual purpose?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Was the property in poor condition?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Are there any indicators of an uninhabited property when the insured claims occupancy?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the property unoccupied?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is there any evidence of CCTV equipment being tampered with?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have any security systems or devices been bypassed?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there multiple seats of fire?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
More than one seat of fire indicates that it may have been deliberately set. Consideration should also be given as to whether the presence of any accelerant has been detected.
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Enquiries should be undertaken as to the security arrangements of the property. Has an alarm been turned off or entry points left unsecured?
Alarm logs should be interrogated to ascertain whether entries and exits to the property are consistent with what the insured has said.
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Enquiries should be made regarding the CCTV coverage of a property and whether any footage can be obtained. Has CCTV equipment been disabled or failed to record for some reason?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has the property been unoccupied or awaiting development for a period of time? Searches should be undertaken of planning records and property listings.
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is there any evidence which contradicts the insured’s account that the property was occupied? For example, utility bills, alarm records, CCTV etc.
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
A derelict or poorly maintained building may indicate financial issues on the part of the insured, or a potential motive to make an insurance claim.
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Consideration should be given to the use of the property. A property being used for an atypical reason, for example a residential property being used to store construction materials would be of potential concern.
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
The removal of walls and ceilings can allow fire to spread more quickly and cause more damage to buildings. The necessity of and timing of any alterations to the building should be scrutinised closely.
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Consider whether it would have been reasonable for the documents to have been kept where they were and therefore if their destruction in the fire was plausible or if this might be a convenient way of avoiding providing evidence in support of the claim.
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Consider if the extent of the loss being claimed for and the number of damaged items is plausible when compared to the area of the property that was damaged .
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Are there multiple seats of fire?
Are there multiple seats of fire?
Are there multiple seats of fire?
Are there multiple seats of fire?
Are there multiple seats of fire?
Are there multiple seats of fire?
Are there multiple seats of fire?
Are there multiple seats of fire?
Are there multiple seats of fire?
Are there multiple seats of fire?
Have any security systems or devices been bypassed?
Have any security systems or devices been bypassed?
Have any security systems or devices been bypassed?
Have any security systems or devices been bypassed?
Have any security systems or devices been bypassed?
Have any security systems or devices been bypassed?
Have any security systems or devices been bypassed?
Have any security systems or devices been bypassed?
Have any security systems or devices been bypassed?
Have any security systems or devices been bypassed?
Is there any evidence of CCTV equipment being tampered with?
Is there any evidence of CCTV equipment being tampered with?
Is there any evidence of CCTV equipment being tampered with?
Is there any evidence of CCTV equipment being tampered with?
Is there any evidence of CCTV equipment being tampered with?
Is there any evidence of CCTV equipment being tampered with?
Is there any evidence of CCTV equipment being tampered with?
Is there any evidence of CCTV equipment being tampered with?
Is there any evidence of CCTV equipment being tampered with?
Is there any evidence of CCTV equipment being tampered with?
Is the property unoccupied?
Is the property unoccupied?
Is the property unoccupied?
Is the property unoccupied?
Is the property unoccupied?
Is the property unoccupied?
Is the property unoccupied?
Is the property unoccupied?
Is the property unoccupied?
Is the property unoccupied?
Are there any indicators of an uninhabited property when the insured claims occupancy?
Are there any indicators of an uninhabited property when the insured claims occupancy?
Are there any indicators of an uninhabited property when the insured claims occupancy?
Are there any indicators of an uninhabited property when the insured claims occupancy?
Are there any indicators of an uninhabited property when the insured claims occupancy?
Are there any indicators of an uninhabited property when the insured claims occupancy?
Are there any indicators of an uninhabited property when the insured claims occupancy?
Are there any indicators of an uninhabited property when the insured claims occupancy?
Are there any indicators of an uninhabited property when the insured claims occupancy?
Are there any indicators of an uninhabited property when the insured claims occupancy?
Was the property in poor condition?
Was the property in poor condition?
Was the property in poor condition?
Was the property in poor condition?
Was the property in poor condition?
Was the property in poor condition?
Was the property in poor condition?
Was the property in poor condition?
Was the property in poor condition?
Was the property in poor condition?
Is there any evidence of the property being used for an unusual purpose?
Is there any evidence of the property being used for an unusual purpose?
Is there any evidence of the property being used for an unusual purpose?
Is there any evidence of the property being used for an unusual purpose?
Is there any evidence of the property being used for an unusual purpose?
Is there any evidence of the property being used for an unusual purpose?
Is there any evidence of the property being used for an unusual purpose?
Is there any evidence of the property being used for an unusual purpose?
Is there any evidence of the property being used for an unusual purpose?
Is there any evidence of the property being used for an unusual purpose?
Has the property undergone significant alterations?
Has the property undergone significant alterations?
Has the property undergone significant alterations?
Has the property undergone significant alterations?
Has the property undergone significant alterations?
Has the property undergone significant alterations?
Has the property undergone significant alterations?
Has the property undergone significant alterations?
Has the property undergone significant alterations?
Has the property undergone significant alterations?
Has relevant evidence and/or documentation in support of the claim been destroyed by the fire?
Has relevant evidence and/or documentation in support of the claim been destroyed by the fire?
Has relevant evidence and/or documentation in support of the claim been destroyed by the fire?
Has relevant evidence and/or documentation in support of the claim been destroyed by the fire?
Has relevant evidence and/or documentation in support of the claim been destroyed by the fire?
Has relevant evidence and/or documentation in support of the claim been destroyed by the fire?
Has relevant evidence and/or documentation in support of the claim been destroyed by the fire?
Has relevant evidence and/or documentation in support of the claim been destroyed by the fire?
Has relevant evidence and/or documentation in support of the claim been destroyed by the fire?
Has relevant evidence and/or documentation in support of the claim been destroyed by the fire?
Was the size and location of the area damaged by the fire consistent with the loss of the inventory / stock / items being claimed for?
Was the size and location of the area damaged by the fire consistent with the loss of the inventory / stock / items being claimed for?
Was the size and location of the area damaged by the fire consistent with the loss of the inventory / stock / items being claimed for?
Was the size and location of the area damaged by the fire consistent with the loss of the inventory / stock / items being claimed for?
Was the size and location of the area damaged by the fire consistent with the loss of the inventory / stock / items being claimed for?
Was the size and location of the area damaged by the fire consistent with the loss of the inventory / stock / items being claimed for?
Was the size and location of the area damaged by the fire consistent with the loss of the inventory / stock / items being claimed for?
Was the size and location of the area damaged by the fire consistent with the loss of the inventory / stock / items being claimed for?
Was the size and location of the area damaged by the fire consistent with the loss of the inventory / stock / items being claimed for?
Was the size and location of the area damaged by the fire consistent with the loss of the inventory / stock / items being claimed for?
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Has remedial work already been completed?
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Is the insured claiming a surprising sum or for surprising items?
Do two or more of these apply to your claim?
Have two or more
claims been made
within the last
5 years?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
The Insured
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Has remedial work already
been completed?
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Is the insured being difficult?
Has cover been incepted or has
the level of cover increased recently?
Have two or more claims been
made within the last 5 years?
Are there financial problems?
Has the insured or witnesses provided vague or conflicting accounts?
Consider whether a vague account is justified given the circumstances and dates involved. Identify and consider the number of inconsistencies in the insured’s evidence.
Has the damaged property or parts already been disposed of?
At FNOL, inform the insured not to dispose of any evidence or parts. Investigators should attend promptly to ensure that evidence is retained. If the insured has already disposed of items relevant to the claim, consider whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Is the documentation suspicious or of poor quality?
Carefully scrutinise the documentation provided by the insured. Is it consistent with the alleged damage? Is the invoice from a company which exists? Is there a VAT number on the invoice? If not, it may indicate a false company. If no documentation has been provided consider whether the reasons for this are justified.
Has remedial work already been completed?
Insurer’s investigators should be the first to examine the property to ensure that evidence is retained. The insured should be told at FNOL to only carry out essential remedial work, and only as agreed with insurers.
If remedial work has been carried out, ask for all documentation that relates to that work. If there is suspicion, inspect that work.
Has the insured provided photographs several months after the incident or are they refusing to provide digital images?
Request digital copies of any photographs to review the timestamp and metadata to ensure it is consistent with the insured’s account. If the insured is not willing to provide digital copies it may be an indication that photographs were taken after the event.
Is the insured refusing
an inspection?
Consider what the insured might be concealing. Scrutinise the evidence and consider whether any other fraud
indicators apply.
Is the insured being difficult?
If the insured is making it unduly difficult to validate or deal with a claim, scrutinise available evidence to see whether any other fraud indicators apply.
Has cover been incepted or has the level of cover increased recently?
If the insured has only held cover for a short time, the dates of the alleged damage should be scrutinised to ensure that the damage did not occur prior to inception. Scrutiny should also be given where the insured has increased the level of cover shortly prior to the fire which may mean the loss was not fortuitous.
Have two or more claims been made within the last 5 years?
Review previous claims made by the insured. Are there any similarities between claims? Any unusual features?
Are there financial problems?
Does the insured’s trading history show any financial difficulty? Due diligence should be undertaken, e.g. check Companies House for commercial policyholders.
ABI research shows that dishonest property insurance claims detected in 2019 rose 30% from the previous year, with a value of £124 million so it’s never been more important to spot a fraudulent claim.
Fire claims fraud can be both domestic and commercial, and range from deliberately set fires to the exaggeration of losses.
If you’re an insurer, what are the key fraud indicators that you need to watch out for, both when a claim is submitted and during the investigation?
At Clyde & Co, we are regularly involved in advising insurers on potentially fraudulent fire claims and helping them navigate the claims process where fraud indicators are present.
Based on our experience, we’ve created our to help insurers identify where insurance fraud might be present. We highlight key indicators of fraud and questions that insurers should consider when dealing with a fire claim. The tool also provides further guidance on what to look for and why it may indicate fraud.
If two or more of the indicators apply to a claim, or if you are in any way suspicious or concerned, we recommend fully profiling and assessing that risk through a rigorous due diligence process. This will help ensure that honest policyholders are paid quickly, whilst bespoke investigations are carried out where cases warrant further validation.
The number and cost of claims are rising, and are extremely expensive for insurers. We need to work together to tackle fraudulent claims and prevent the rising levels of falsified and exaggerated fire claims.
Get in contact
Find out more about our
Insurance & Reinsurance
Property team
ABI research shows that dishonest property insurance claims detected in 2019 rose 30% from the previous year, with a value of £124 million so it’s never been more important to spot a fraudulent claim.
Fire claims fraud can be both domestic and commercial, and range from deliberately set fires to the exaggeration of losses.
If you’re an insurer, what are the key fraud indicators that you need to watch out for, both when a claim is submitted and during the investigation?
At Clyde & Co, we are regularly involved in advising insurers on potentially fraudulent fire claims and helping them navigate the claims process where fraud indicators are present.
Based on our experience, we’ve created our
f to help insurers identify where insurance fraud might be present. We highlight key indicators of fraud and questions that insurers should consider when dealing with a fire claim. The tool also provides further guidance on what to look for and why it may indicate fraud.
If two or more of the indicators apply to a claim, or if you are in any way suspicious or concerned, we recommend fully profiling and assessing that risk through a rigorous due diligence process. This will help ensure that honest policyholders are paid quickly, whilst bespoke investigations are carried out where cases warrant further validation.
The number and cost of claims are rising, and are extremely expensive for insurers. We need to work together to tackle fraudulent claims and prevent the rising levels of falsified and exaggerated fire claims
Find out more about our
Insurance & Reinsurance
Property team
Contact us
Key fraud indicator for Fire tool
fraud indicator for Fire tool
Key