Require enough evidence and version information for another qualified reviewer to understand and challenge the work. The following is a proposed property insurance claim file quality assurance checklist; adapt it to the carrier’s policies, applicable requirements and actual claim type.
The Carrier-Ready Acceptance Pack
| Component | Proposed acceptance requirement | Return or escalate if |
|---|---|---|
| Identity and assignment | Correct claim, loss location, building, assignment and inspection references | Evidence or estimate belongs to another claim or structure |
| Evidence manifest | List of source documents, photographs, sketches and later additions | Sources are missing, inaccessible or ambiguously identified |
| Inspection narrative | What was observed, what was reported, who supplied it and unresolved limitations | A reported statement is presented as a verified finding |
| Photographs | Indexed context and detail images linked to rooms, elevations or affected components | Images cannot support the claimed location or damage |
| Measurements and sketch | Units, dimensions, relevant openings and source of measurement | Quantities depend on missing or contradictory measurements |
| Scope schedule | Repair activities linked to the evidence and identified assumptions | Work is omitted, duplicated or unsupported |
| Editable estimate | Carrier-approved native format, relevant settings, line items and notes | Only a PDF is supplied when editable delivery is required |
| Readable estimate | Human-readable report matching the editable version | Totals, quantities or versions differ |
| Pricing and adjustments | Identified price list and documented reasons for relevant overrides | An adjustment lacks an explanation or approval where required |
| Exceptions | Unresolved matters, owner and next action | A coverage or technical question is silently decided by production |
| QA record | Checks completed, findings, corrections and authorised overrides | An alert is bypassed without a recorded reason |
| Version and hand-off | Producer, reviewer, timestamps and accepted version | The carrier receives conflicting drafts or an untraceable final file |
How much evidence is enough for water or wind losses?
Do not prescribe an arbitrary photograph count. Ask whether the package supports each material scope assertion.
For a water damage inspection documentation checklist, consider requesting:
- Room identifiers and dimensions.
- Overview and detail photographs of affected and relevant adjacent areas.
- Materials and finishes, with uncertainty explicitly marked.
- Recorded moisture observations or readings where relevant and actually taken.
- Inspection date and sequence of events as reported by identified sources.
- Mitigation documentation relevant to the work being estimated.
- Areas not accessed, conditions obscured and questions requiring further investigation.
For wind-related repair estimating, consider requesting:
- Building and elevation identifiers.
- Roof or exterior measurements and their source.
- Overview images and component-level damage photographs.
- Observed material type and relevant condition information.
- Access limitations and unresolved repairability or specialist questions.
These are proposed production inputs, not a substitute for a qualified inspection. Do not fabricate readings, dimensions or condition findings to complete a template.
How should evidence link to estimate items?
Use a simple evidence register before investing in elaborate automation:
estimate_item_id | location | quantity_basis | evidence_ids | assumption | rule_version | reviewer_disposition
Synthetic example: an item for ceiling replacement in Room R03 could reference a measured sketch, inspection photographs and the inspector’s recorded damage extent. If those sources conflict, mark the quantity unresolved and request clarification rather than choosing the most convenient value.
Apply the same traceability to exclusions and reductions. Evidence quality should support both included work and the rationale for not including a disputed item.
Should the price list be treated as the correct price automatically?
No. Verisk’s pricing methodology states that published market-price information may not fit every contractor, repair or structure, and that users can modify costs to reflect the particular job. Recommended control: identify the relevant price list, preserve justified deviations and route disputed pricing assumptions to the authorised reviewer—not to an automatic “lowest price wins” rule. (verisk.com)
Exit gate: two reviewers can independently apply the acceptance pack to calibration files and resolve disagreements using a documented rule, not personal preference.
Sources cited on this page
- verisk.comverisk.com