Facts: Client hired firm after receiving a complaint regarding a prior property inspection. NP worked as an investigator for an insurance company. He inspected properties and made determinations on what damage occurred. That assessments were submitted to the insurance company and then the insurance company makes decisions on payout based on causation and damages. NP inspected a client’s property and issued a report to his employer detailing that most of the damage was not caused by a recent storm, as the client indicated. The client was upset by the company’s decision and hired another inspector who came to a different conclusion. The client then filed a complaint against NP alleging that he committed fraud.
Outcome: The firm submitted a response arguing that the client was just upset that the insurance company was not covering the cost of all his damage. We argued that the secondary inspection report was biased as the inspector was just trying to appease the client. That report was a few short pages with conclusory remarks. This was in contrast to NP’s 40-page report with data, pictures and fully expressed opinions on the damage to the property. We also provided an expert report noting how NP’s report was drastically more comprehensive than the client’s secondary report. Based on the firm response, the Board dismissed the complaint.