MEP Forensics

MEP Forensics

For the third year in a row AE 537  is pleased to host a Visiting Practitioner Lecture on MEP Forensics.  The session speaker is John T. Boyer, Sr., P.E., Principal and MEP Leader of Thornton Tomasetti (TT).  Mr. Boyer presented an overview of forensics work at TT with an emphasis on MEP forensics including touching on Cause & Origin Investigations, Expert Witness / Litigation Support, Thermal Imaging, Investigation Tools and Forensic Information Modeling (FIM).

The presentation included a number of mini-case studies of projects ranging from the recreation of MEP drawings and building models in the aftermath of a major fire to damage to a HVAC water riser piping system (FIM project) to damage to the the current WTC Towers as a result of  brackish water inundation during CAT-90 Sandy.   In addition, this presentation took place literally a few days after Hurricane Irma and Mr. Boyer provided some first hand comments on the situation as it relates to buildings and infrastructure.

As Architectural Engineers and others interested in building related failures of all types you will encounter MEP failures of many kinds.  For example, many fires are electrical in origin and you will deal with the aftermath even if you are not charged with the cause and origin investigations.  A common MEP failure issue in residential construction is related to  PEX Plumbing Failures available on Failures Wiki under Systems Failures.   Students are encouraged to share their personal experiences, to discuss the interdisciplinary nature of forensic consulting and to research and discuss other MEP type failures including comparing them to the ones discussed by Mr. Boyer for similarities or patterns.

One document of interest on this topic that also contains other resources is the Hurricane Sandy – Lessons Learned from FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) summary slide show.


Tags: , ,

26 Responses to “MEP Forensics”

  1. Katie W.
    September 25, 2018 at 11:55 pm #

    After listening to Mr. Boyer’s presentation on mechanical failures and investigation in forensics, I learned a great deal about the insurance side of the process and how mechanical equipment can be a factor in building failures. I knew previously about mechanical commissioning and the importance of making sure everything is running smoothly, but I didn’t quite realize the large possible effect it could have on the structure. So far, we’ve mostly been looking at failures in a structural view. We often take the view that mechanical failures are not as bad as structural ones, because they are just going to affect the occupant’s comfort level versus structural instability and endangering the occupant. However, it is important to realize that mechanical failures can sometimes cause or be a factor in structural failures. I wonder what are the percentages for structural failures that have been affected by mechanical failures in comparison to say, building technology failures.

    This lecture also brought to light the area of damage assessment and subrogation, which has been yet unexplored until this point. I found it interesting especially when Mr. Boyer talked about the negotiation that went into insurance claims. Time spent in arguments over every piece of damage can end up costing companies more than what the actual damages cost. This was shown through the World Trade Center case study. The case for that failure is still ongoing, even though it was repaired and is not open to the public, and this is mostly because of the disputes over damage claims. I feel someone at some point should tell the company that it is not worth it to argue over every little point but to focus on the main pieces of damage. However that is up to the company to decide.

  2. Steven B
    September 25, 2018 at 10:30 pm #

    The enthusiasm that Mr. Boyer has for the field of Forensic Engineering was evident throughout his presentation. It appears each case study reinforced why he is a Forensic Engineer. Whether he was discussing the damage to the sub-levels of the World Trade Center caused by hurricane Sandy or the copper coil failure on a A/C unit in a high-rise in Manhattan, the same level of importance was given to each.
    The case study about the damage cause by Hurricane Sandy was relevant and timely. The aftermath of hurricane Florence was forecast to make its way up through the northeast and officials were preparing. I news report just a day after the presentation investigated the state of the airport in the region. It turns out that most airport for major cities in the region were built on marshy land that is typically bordered by one or more major waterways. The report emphasized the concerns the airport officials had about the changing climate the effect that it would have on there infrastructure. Like the World Trade Center, these airports have most MEP located multiple levels below grade. Just like the WTC, this equipment maybe subjected to intrusion of water if the airport was to flood, which is becoming more likely. The report went on to discuss that some airports have taken steps to raise their MEP to levels that would be above the most likely flood levels.
    Today’s infrastructure that was designed and built with a different climate in mind than what it will encounter in the future. The Forensic Engineer will be called upon more often to not only assess the damage cause by super storms, but also to recommend retrofits before the damage occurs.

  3. rgstanza
    September 25, 2018 at 10:30 pm #

    The process to compile all of the data analytics to generate Thornton Tomasetti’s “Smart Maps” is a very innovative, accurate, and easily displayed way to show a layperson, either in an insurance company or a jury in court, the actual damages that occurred during a natural disaster. This helps prevent insurance fraud because the maps show clear evidence whether a building was actually affected by an event, such as flood damages during Hurricane Sandy.

    The method to generate these maps seems like it is still in it’s early phases of development. After asking Mr. Boyer, I was under the impression that these maps are generated by analyzing the weather data, traffic camera observations, and testimonial ground observations, which are then compiled by T&T’s computer science data analytics group to generate “Smart Maps”. The method is accurate, but I wonder if the buildings and infrastructure of the future could generate this kind of data faster while also serving other purposes for a building’s use. It might seem a little outlandish, but as technology improves and the costs for hardware/software declines, would it be more cost efficient to equip new and existing buildings with data sensors to record data such as water penetration during a flood to help generate these maps?

    As others have pointed out, there is a limit at which point it is no longer cost effective for insurance companies to further pursue an investigation and instead pay policy limits. With less manpower and time to create these smart maps, could the excess money be used for insurance companies to further pursue these types of forensic investigations? Would the industry see more litigations as a result?

    • Josiah M
      September 26, 2018 at 6:19 pm #


      The idea of equipping buildings with data sensors to record data, such as water penetration is very interesting. I think it would do a great deal to help systematically compile data that would otherwise have to be done manually. Of course this implication would benefit insurance companies when it comes to assessing claims, but another application of this data would be in design. After monitoring the data for long enough the likelihood of events could be determined using statistics, additionally, the extent of severe events could be monitored. Therefore, this data could be used for future designs. With the knowledge of the outlying events, designers can account for them and effectively mitigate, or even eliminate damage, caused by an event of similar magnitude.

    • Clayton T
      September 26, 2018 at 6:22 pm #

      I am also interested in the capabilities of furthering the smart map technology however, I am more interested in how it may be applied to building structures specifically. While load calculations vary building to building it may be beneficial to create a database of surrounding building based on the environmental setting, local and international codes, whether any anomalies have occurred in the area and the possibility of those occurring in the future. Also within the construction side and coordination, data presentation of available material, surrounding contractors, past construction lengths may all be very helpful to expediting the process of design and construction management.

  4. Jackson H
    September 25, 2018 at 9:20 pm #

    It is amazing how such drastically different takeaways can be achieved from one lecture to the next. After every lecture it seems as if I learn something completely new and different from each speaker. Not only did we get some exposure to MEP failure case studies, Mr. Boyer’s presentation taught me a lot about the expert witness aspect of forensic engineering. Being the large company that Thornton-Tomasetti is, they get hired on both sides of failures. It certainly does seem like a challenge to maintain professional ethics as well as a marketable reputation when you have people on both sides of an insurance claim paying the bills. You want to satisfy your client so that you can get repeat business, but you need to stay unbiased so that you can maintain credibility to support professional opinion and testimony. Most engineers would never once think that they would have to have to be competent in the law, but for forensic engineers it seems as if it is a necessity. Being meticulous in everything is also an absolute necessity. As Mr. Boyer said, the World Trade Center claim has a spreadsheet that details damages and costs, and it has over 50,000 line items. To be able to coordinate the number of people required to record and analyze all that data and keep it all accurate seems like nothing short of a miracle.

  5. Josiah M
    September 25, 2018 at 8:58 pm #

    Being that the primary focus of AE 537 is structural forensics, it was nice to hear about the MEP side of forensics. What particularly interested me was the “Cause and Origin Studies” that Mr. Boyer talked about.

    One example he gave was of a data center that experienced water damage. It took a bit of time to find cause of the damage which ended up being a failed coil higher up in the building. Further investigation was conducted to find that the root of the failure was attributed to a lack of communication somewhere along the line, and an incorrect component was installed. It’s quite amazing how Mr. Boyer’s team could trace the failure of such a small component all the way back to were it originated.

    Another thing I found to be interesting was TT’s investigations for insurance companies. Mr. Boyer mentioned that some of the work that they do is validating insurance claims, and part of that is assessing the damage on a building and determining if the damage was actually caused by the incident or if it existed beforehand. In some cases it was found that some of the damage being claimed happened before the fact, and the owners where trying to take advantage of their insurance. It was cool to see that there are practices in place at TT to uncovering the “real damage”, if you will.

    • Jackson H
      September 27, 2018 at 8:36 am #

      The data center water damage was an interesting case study for how such a small detail can cause such a significant amount of property damage. Even once the issue of the burst elbow was found they still had to figure out why the elbow failed, and to me, that seems to be much more difficult than just being able to find where the damage occurred. There are so many possible reasons for why something has failed and when providing a expert testimony to an insurance company where millions of dollars are on the line you have to be extremely confident that you have found the right reason.

      I think the heat pump failures were also an interesting case study since Thornton Tomasetti had to use a wide range of their available resources to conclude what the source of the failures was. Having worked for a test center where all we do is experimental work trying to figure out where and why components fail, it is interesting to see what resources other companies use to test equipment to failure. Removing all of those heat pumps and shipping them to the lab to undergo weeks of testing is no small task both physically and financially. It shows how important knowing what the actual failure mode is, especially when it concerns something that is such a safety hazard.

  6. Ryan L
    September 25, 2018 at 3:51 pm #

    After Mr Boyer’s brief, I would like to see the involvement of forensic engineers in non-catastrophic failures that relate to HVAC issues. Specifically, In high occupancy buildings, where owners draw the line between repetitive repairs and actual failure of a system regarding temperature, humidity, in-door air quality etc. Do firms like TT even get involved in these situations, especially when it goes to litigation

  7. SamZ
    September 25, 2018 at 2:57 pm #

    Mr. Boyer’s presentation on MEP building failures shed light on a whole other area of building failures that being so focused on structures I did not even consider until now. Although there are principles that are universal to both the MEP side of failures is different. From the case studies Mr. Boyer presented it sounded like a lot more of the work was done with insurance companies and regarded surveying damage and/or determining what would be included in a claim. To name one instance, this was the case with the World Trade Center where the flood waters damaged or destroyed tens of millions of dollars worth of MEP equipment and the insurance companies needed expertise in determining what was a total lose, salvageable, or unaffected. That being said, there is a good deal of investigation as well, for example the hotel room HVAC units that caught fire. That required extensive investigation and was only solved after a week in a lab with units moved half way across the country at great cost. One thing that really surprised me was how much insurance companies are willing to pay to get to the cause of something and/or reduce a claim or pass the buck to another party.Going back to the WTC, Sandy was 6 years ago and there is still a team at Thornton Tomasetti working on a list of thousands of items that were claimed as part of the damage on a claim of over 1 billion dollars. It is hard to fathom how much money is at stake in some of these cases.

  8. Abby S
    September 25, 2018 at 7:05 am #

    Mr. Boyer’s presentation on forensic investigations of MEP failures provided a detailed look into failures that go beyond structural issues. There are two themes that stood out to me during his presentation.

    The first is the intricacy of the insurance process when a failure occurs. If not carried out properly and carefully, the investigation process can lead to problems with insurance claims. For example, some owners may try to claim additional damages that had been preexisting and were not due to the recent failure, so it is critical to separate new and old damage. It is also necessary to preserve any evidence so that disputes regarding the investigation during litigation can be settled. This seems like it would be extremely difficult given the extent of some of the failures discussed, so it makes sense that a few of the case studies require engineers to be on site for months or years.

    Another topic that stood out to me was the use of different investigation tools. Mr. Boyer stated that the most useful tool is typically the least technical: physically seeing the site and damage and documenting it through photos. These photos can be an asset when determining the cause of failure and discussing the case in court. Someone raised a good question about managing such a large quantity of photos without duplicating information, and Mr. Boyer mentioned that a computer information specialist is often brought in for this job, which I found very interesting. In contrast to the simple photo technique, I think the forensic information model (FIM) is a unique and helpful tool for providing a visual analysis of what happened. Clearly, there is a large range of forensic investigation techniques available, but with all of this information and evidence being passed through so many people during an investigation, how can it be assured that critical evidence is not lost in the process?

    • rgstanza
      September 27, 2018 at 12:31 am #

      I think you raise a great point about how to assure that the primary forensic information is not lost when so much data is being passed between different parties. I’m assuming there is some sort of established procedure to document and upload information into a global database that is shared between the investigative parties from a particular company. What I hope is that all of the information is reviewed by different engineers so that items that may seem trivial, but are actually critical, don’t slip under the radar.

      I’m sure that during an investigation there are plenty of meetings that discuss new information, data, and findings, but is the entirety of the data really being looked at by a second set of eyes that the first might have missed? Is it even feasible or cost efficient to have such a large amount of redundancy built in?

  9. Clayton T
    September 24, 2018 at 4:39 pm #

    Participating in a course primarily focused on structural failures of buildings thus far it was very interesting to see the hear about the aspects of MEP that may cause significant failures. However, I did notice a large conceptual similarity between the, no matter how small a component of the building it may be, the resulting failure can be minute to catastrophic. An example of this would be the material chosen for a closed system, being the incorrect member and exposed to constant erosion the elbow failed causing significant damage but was detected fairly easily compared to other ongoing problems such as an overheating member in a heat pump which resulted in multiple failures and in some cases fire. The source of this failure took significant time and man power, modeling and testing almost all components of the heat pump until the issue was resolved. A difference I’ve come to realize is the functionality of an existing building while the failure is occurring. While a structural failure is rarely localized, there is very often cases where MEP failures do no constitute complete building shutdown or failure. For this reason MEP forensics must be very specific and an in depth analysis needs to be done determining the causes and possibles effects of a failure to continue use of a structure without hampering the occupants.

    • Abby S
      September 26, 2018 at 11:29 pm #


      I agree with your points about MEP forensics being very specific and in-depth. I think it must be very difficult to assess the full extent of the damages and how they might further affect the other building systems. With structural failures, it is seems obvious that there would be hesitation to allow occupancy of the building if it is even possible, but with MEP failures, it must be a challenge to decide whether or not parts of the building can still remain in use. Since many mechanical units are located throughout the building, like the HVAC units in the hotel rooms that caught fire, it seems likely a failure in one location would lead to changes being made throughout the entire building, which would cost a lot of time and money. So while these problems may seem small because of the individual component size, you are definitely correct in saying they could be catastrophic. I also think it would be interesting to see more cases of how MEP failures can cause a chain reaction and potentially lead to structural failures.

  10. Ryan L
    September 24, 2018 at 4:29 pm #

    Many of the case studies we have reviewed have shown that consensus on building failures is often not reached. Those case studies and Mr. Boyer’s emphasis on his professional role working with insurance entities and others with a significant economic stake, bring two things to the forefront for me:

    1) A forensic engineer must be extremely competent, thorough and communicate extremely well.

    During litigation, it is imperative that the work done by Mr. Boyer’s team can withstand being scrutinized by other parties. And as he pointed out, the determining parties don’t always have a strong background in engineering, therefore the findings must be communicated in a way that is understood by all parties.

    2) The ethical responsibilities of a forensic team that works in the insurance claim / expert witness field are probably tested routinely. Multiple groups/agencies/etc. working to determine the cause of a failure must not be influenced by future gains/contracts in order to both preserve legitimacy and support efforts to ensure the failure isn’t systemic or become systemic.

    • Jordan O
      September 25, 2018 at 12:10 am #


      Your second point brings up another highlight of Mr. Boyer’s presentation. These forensic investigations often not only test the ethical responsibilities of the forensic team, but also can highlight how ethical or unethical an owner was acting in their claim. As we saw in a few of the case studies, after a partial building collapse or specific failure, and owner took it upon themselves to not only replace the existing system, but upgrade it. This is fine and is a good opportunity to improve the building, but when they claim that new system cost in their losses it can be seen as acting unethically. Thornton Tomasetti’s extensive investigative work done often catches many of these over estimated and can accurately and appropriately adjust the estimate in a way that is fair to all parties.

      • mkev
        September 25, 2018 at 7:04 am #

        Keep in mind that the other possibility is that many Owners don’t really understand their policies very well either, some of which are fairly complex. Code upgrades, for example, are included in some policies but they have cost limits and/or are limited to certain aspects of the building. In other cases, owners may be required to upgrade certain items for safety or logistics purposes but they may not realize that it is not covered under the policy or they did not select that option when they purchased the insurance.

        Another example, many homeowners who have severe damage from water in Florence likely don’t have flood insurance yet they may have the impression their policy covers it since they are covered for “water”. If a pipe broke, yes. If rain comes in through the roof, yes. Flash flood water…likely a different scenario.

        • Eric I
          September 26, 2018 at 10:41 pm #

          Continuing along the lines of unethical behavior and the business of insurance claims, I think you have all brought up very interesting points that arise from different perspectives.

          Starting with the forensics team, I’m sure the scenario arises fairly often when one needs to avoid unethical practices. No matter what side you’re on, (owner, builder, designer or insurer) these failures can have potentially massive financial impacts that every party is trying to avoid shelling out the cash for. As the professional brought in to assess the situation, one must always report their findings from an objective point of view. Mr. Boyer spoke about how his firm strives to always remain consistent and non-biased in their reports in an effort to uphold their credibility. In my opinion, this is just one way to ensure the ethical obligation of their position is being met.

          Speaking from the owner’s perspective, I’m sure there have been countless cases of insurance fraud. While some people may try to take advantage of the situation by claiming more than what is allowed, there are often just simple misunderstandings in the policy as Professor Parfitt mentioned. I think it is always good practice to give people the benefit of the doubt first to avoid an adversarial relationship but to always remain critical of the information being found. Also, I’m sure many of us will eventually end up on the ownership side of the business at some point. With that, his lecture was a great lesson to always fully understand the policies being signed up for. It is all to easy to get lost in the legal documents or to think “this won’t happen to me” but when the worst case does happen, it is so vital to be protected and to understand the coverage.

  11. Smithr
    September 24, 2018 at 3:30 pm #

    Mr. Boyer’s presentation left an impression on me in regards to the scope of severity over the different MEP failures in projects. For example, we saw an instance of hurricane damage on rooftop ERUs. In this case it was interesting to see where TT needs to determine what the damage was before the event and what occurred after. On the other hand, we saw an example of the random fires in hotel rooms. Most cases can be handled with a site investigation and a some analysis of the documents on file. This case was an extreme where some mechanical equipment had to be tested to discover what the failure was. It was interesting to hear about how TT had to explain to their client why they needed to do this testing because it obviously had costs associated with it.

  12. mkev
    September 24, 2018 at 2:53 pm #

    Sierra and others raise a good question about the trade off in costs to settle a claim. Technically the insurance company is required to verify the claim, regardless of cost or we are looking at insurance fraud. That said, there are many gray areas. For example, is it more economical to clean that air handler or replace it? Differing opinions could result.

    What also can happen is when it becomes obvious to the insurance company that the costs are going to exceed the policy limits, then they can stop detailed investigation and pay the policy limits which is giving the client all they are due and that ends the investigation process as additional details are not needed.

    TT and the other companies talking in class often assist the insurance companies in that task. You will hear more about this from John DiMenno of J S Held in a few weeks.

    • Smithr
      September 26, 2018 at 5:39 pm #


      From John’s lecture it appears that the investigation team will usually begin to create a matrix of all of the items in the building to create an inventory of what damage was actually caused from the event. Assuming that most of the TT project managers and most of the insurance company agents are working on multiple projects. Due to this, usually the “big ticket” items are the ones that really are discussed and the rest of the matrix items are just used as a negotiating tool. Is this common across projects? I would it would vary case by case

      • Smithr
        September 26, 2018 at 5:40 pm #

        *I would imagine it would vary case by case

        sorry for the typo

  13. Jordan O
    September 24, 2018 at 1:07 am #

    The presentation given by Mr. Boyer about mechanical and electrical failures in buildings introduced us to a new level of thinking when it comes to building failures. When most people think of a building failure, they probably think of a structural failure or collapse. Even if that is the end result, a structural issue may not have been the root cause. Mr. Boyers presentation showed us how mechanical and electrical failures could ultimately lead to the structural collapse of a building and other smaller issues as well.

    Mr. Boyer presented a number of case studies that all centered around the idea of either accidental/preventable failures or “Act of God” or natural disaster caused failures. Similar to structural/construction rooted incidents, small mistakes in design, production, or installation can compound on one another and become catastrophic. A lack of maintenance in a meat processing plant, followed by an accidental flare landing on the roof where grease was accumulated, led to a significant portion of the plant burning down. In cases like this, Thornton Tomasetti is often called in to perform many of the investigative and re-design tasks for the project. They analyze the damage, create models of the original structure and attempt to pinpoint exactly what happened to best estimate the true cost of damages. Sometimes building owners think they can renovate on their own and claim total loss but the investigative work by Thornton Tomasetti often brings the true dollar amount for damages to light. The company has a wide variety of workers across several disciplines which allows them to perform all of the necessary tasks in a situation like this much more efficiently than if several companies were working on the same project and attempting to coordinate.

    This presentation helped provide a new perspective on building failures and will potentially serve as a new thought pathway for a student in this class if they eventually go on to work on a failures project. Learning about different types of failures is making us better engineers and is providing us with the means to explore all routes towards the best building possible when designing new construction or working on a renovation of a building that failed.

  14. Eric I
    September 22, 2018 at 9:21 pm #

    Mr. Boyer’s presentation on MEP forensics gave a very interesting and different perspective on the idea of building failures. When I hear the term “building failures,” my mind jumps straight to structural concerns so I never really considered the problems with mechanical and electrical systems. These components are equally important to the overall building and the cost associated with this type of failures can be alarmingly high.

    Mr. Boyer presented on numerous case studies and the failure root causes ranged from everything to process errors and natural disasters. His specific position works with the property loss consulting group of Thornton Tomasetti, which is a career path for AE’s that was new to me. Basically, when a system does fail, he is hired by insurance groups, building owners and design teams to produce expert reports to sort out who is responsible for the financial liability. One case study that was of particular interest to me was the Sumitomo coil failure. In summary, the pipe elbow in a fan coil unit failed and drained water throughout the building. His task was to sort out what the cause was and it ultimately was because the unit was made for closed loop systems but was installed in an open loop system. This mistake was traced back to the reviewers of the shop drawings and those people were held accountable. This was such a small detail to catch but without MEP forensic specialists, it may have gone unsolved or paid for by the wrong parties.

    Another interesting case study he shared was the issues at the World Trade Center after hurricane Sandy. TT was tasked with creating flood maps to help the insurance companies sort out whose claims with legitimate. With the WTC specifically, the floodwater was salt water which corroded all of the MEP equipment. Determining the extent of the damage from an event like this becomes extremely complicated and expensive. Someone needs to ultimately attach a price tag to this catastrophe and document all of the damages. It would take a team of industry experts to aid the owners/insurers in understanding the costs and the effects on the building operation.

    • Sierra S
      September 24, 2018 at 9:41 am #


      Your discussion of the “price tag” ties into my earlier question. At what point does the insurance company find it valuable to switch from paying a company to investigate to paying the claim. In the case of the World Trade Center there has been an ongoing investigation for years after hurricane Sandy. The owners of these properties cannot wait years to fix the issue so they take it upon themselves to front the cost until the insurance company can payout their claim. However, this course of action can lead to larger loss of money. For example, in the ADM Grain Elevator case study the repairs that the owner made far exceeded what was damaged during the failure. Not only did they replaced more than what was necessary, they also upgraded their system which resulted in higher cost. The owner did not receive payback for all of their “repairs.” However, they did receive compensation for the cost of repairs for the failed members of the system which TT determined.

      All in all there is a fine balance when it comes to property loss consulting. It takes many experts to determine what was lost in a failure and costs to compensate for the necessary repairs.

  15. Sierra S
    September 21, 2018 at 7:05 pm #

    It was interesting to see the MEP perspective of failures discussed by John Boyer. Similar to structures, MEP equipment can fail to perform what it was prescribed to do. These failures can occur due to incorrect installment of the equipment, fires in a building, etc.

    One example of a process/construction error was the Sumitomo Coil Failure. This was when a fan coil unit had an elbow of the system break out which allowed water to pour throughout a data center producing a lot of damage. The failure of this elbow was due to a submittal being approved for a close loop elbow instead of the proper open loop elbow. Even though this failure did not cost any lives it allowed for millions dollars in damage. I find this failure comparable to connection issues in structural elements like facade attachments. Improper installment or parts allows for potential failure in every system.

    Another aspect that Mr. Boyer emphasized was the view of the insurance companies. In prior case studies we have always analyzed the causes of failures, repair and life safety. However, the cost it takes to repair the damage has to come from somewhere. Thornton Tomasetti puts extensive research into failure cases to determine which equipment is salvageable to ensure that the business is not claiming compensation for more parts than what was destroyed. I did not realize that paying a company to do this research would be significantly cheaper than paying out an entire claim. I am curious at which point does an investigation outweigh a claim.

Leave a Reply