10/15/2026
When Expert Opinions Replace Accountability, Policyholders Pay the Price.
We've been raising concerns about these types of practices for years, so I can't say I'm surprised.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But when you're a licensed professional engineer whose opinions can determine whether a policyholder receives hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of dollars in insurance benefits, that opinion comes with serious professional and ethical responsibilities.
Engineering conclusions should be grounded in objective evidence, sound methodology, professional independence, and accepted engineering principles.
When there is a recurring pattern of questionable findings, inconsistent methodologies, or conclusions that appear to depart from those fundamental principles, it raises legitimate questions that deserve investigation and accountability.
And let's not overlook the insurance companies.
Insurers regularly rely on engineering reports and other third-party expert opinions to support coverage decisions, claim denials, and settlement positions. But retaining an outside expert does not relieve an insurance company of its responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and fairly evaluate the evidence.
An expert report should never become a convenient substitute for an independent, good-faith claim investigation.
The question isn't whether engineers are entitled to their opinions. The question is whether those opinions can withstand objective scrutiny—and whether the insurance companies relying on them are willing to accept responsibility for the resulting claim decisions.
Professional accountability shouldn't be optional. Neither should fair treatment of policyholders.
At Insurance Claim Recovery Support (ICRS), we've spent more than two decades advocating for policyholders and challenging claim decisions that aren't supported by the evidence.
Insurance companies have experts working for them. You should too.™
Most cases alleging State Farm ran a scheme to defraud policy holders through denying wind and hail claims come with heavily redacted court documents and protective orders shielding any exhibits from the public. But a recent hearing has put a spotlight on the company's alleged use of Haag Engineering. Link in comments for full story.
