It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Whenit comes to insurance claims it can be worth thousands ofdollars.

During my tenure as a quality assurance director for a largemultinational insurer, I was surprised at the frequency of claimsfiles lacking a quality scene investigation. In many cases, even a trip to Bing Maps orGoogle Earth would have sufficed, but even these were conspicuouslyabsent.

Coming from a school where scene investigations weren'toptional, it was always frustrating to see so much money left onthe table as the result of incomplete investigations and poorliability decisions. In many instances investigations were limitedto phone calls with claim parties, who themselves may not fullyunderstand the concept of duties owed, duties breached andcomparative negligence.

Much like the X's and O's a footballcoach puts on a blackboard, the scene investigation provides thevisual for both what happened and what should have happened. Fromthe timing of the traffic signal to the debris and the skid marks,a trip to the scene of an accident provides much needed evidence toproperly formulate a liability decision.

Consider the case of an insured making a left turn and beingstruck by the claimant. In far too many cases there are assessmentsof 100 percent liability against the insured. While this mayprovide an easy path to closing a claim, it is extremely rare forany accident, other than a traditional rear-ender, to beall-or-nothing propositions.

According to JuryVerdict Research, a national organization that tracks suchdata, rear-end auto accidents accounted for only 45 percent of auto casesadjudicated, with the remainder comprised of intersectioncollisions, lane changes, chain reactions, and parking lotscenarios. In other words, a lot of claims where there was sharedliability.

To effectively conduct the scene investigation, it is importantto gather as much information as possible. Speaking with theinsured, claimant and witnesses are all key components to gatheringfacts. During these statements, which should be recorded withpermission, questions should be geared toward not only whathappened, but searching for possible liability mitigators.

As discussed in “Re-Adjusted: 20 Essential Rulesto Take Your Claims Organization From Ordinary to Extraordinary,”some such questions include direction of travel, position of thesun, weather, passengers, radio volume, cell phone usage,recognition of oncoming traffic, signal malfunction or visibleobstructions.

In the following example, consider the impact of a thoroughscene investigation:

The claimant calls in a loss and says that they were goingstraight, had a green light and your insured turned in front ofthem. A call to the insured says that they turned left because theythought there was enough time. Far too often this is where theinvestigation stops. The claim notes often reflect “Insured turnedleft in front of claimant, insured 100 percent at fault.” Butshould it stop there?

Consider the following additional facts gathered during thecourse of the same investigation:

1. The speed limit was 45 and the claimant was in the No. 3(outermost) of three westbound lanes.
2. The time of loss was 6:15 p.m. Sunset was 6:35 p.m.
3. The light cycle was 60 seconds green and 10 seconds yellow witha three second delay between cycles.
4. The claimant was headed due west, into the sun.
5. The claimant was an 18-year-old female, who attended collegeand had three guest passengers.
6. The claimant's radio was on and there was active conversationin the vehicle.
7. The damage to the claimant's vehicle was centered in thefront.
8. The damage to the insured's vehicle was in the right, reardoor.

Given this additional information, the investigating adjusterwould consider duties owed and duties breached by each party. While the insured failed to yield the right ofway, they did clearly establish control of the intersection,crossing three lanes in front of an inexperienced driver who mayhave been distracted. While the percentages of fault may besubjective, what is evident is that this was not a clear liabilityaccident.

By going to the scene it is possible to visualize just how faracross the intersection the insured proceeded. By canvassing, it ispossible to find witnesses who may be able to point out othercontributing factors such as speed. It is also possible to see thatthat the hedgerow between east and westbound traffic may be so tallthat it impedes visibility, potentially creating municipalculpability.

In this particular case, the claimant retained an attorney. Theguest passengers retained the same attorney, which would havebecome a conflict of interest as soon as any fault was placed onthe claimant. As a fiduciary, it is incumbent upon the insurer toprotect the financial interest of the insured, which can't beaccomplished with a marginal investigation. This, of course, canresult in actions against the insurer should there ever be ajudgment in excess of the policy limits.

Basic blocking and tackling, such as scene investigations,provides adjusters with the means by which to formulate appropriateliability decisions so as to ensure accurate settlements. Bygetting back to basics and focusing on quality outcomes, insurerscan quickly gain a competitive edge in the marketplace.