One of the biggest problems in property damage claims is that everyone says they are doing an "inspection," but everybody does it differently. Too often, the inspection doesn't do its job.
Before I practiced law, I used ASTM E2018 to help build inspection protocols for my consulting and public adjusting work. I wanted to capture the complete picture. Not just the damage somebody reported. Not just the roof. Not just the easy stuff. The complete picture. This article explains what ASTM E2018 is, what it is not, and why its approach matters for Texas property damage claims.
Carriers usually inspect only what was reported
Carriers almost always inspect what was reported. If the claim is reported as hail damage to a roof, the inspection usually focuses on hail damage to the roof. That may be fine for a narrow claim review, but it is not a full property damage investigation. That is where policyholder advocates and experts come in.
A thorough investigation may find there was no hail damage. But it may also find wind damage. Or a separate water or mold issue. Or window damage. Or damage to elevations, fencing, detached structures, interior finishes, or other areas nobody identified when the claim was first reported. A thorough investigation protects the policyholder. It also protects the carrier when future claims are made for the same damage, or when someone says the damage was a pre-existing condition.
The decision to make a claim belongs to the policyholder
Carriers and defense attorneys may complain about policyholders making multiple claims. They may raise barratry arguments. They may say the claim has somehow grown beyond what was originally reported. They may blame policyholder advocates for driving claims. But the decision belongs to the policyholder.
The advocate's job is to uncover the evidence, present it to the policyholder, explain the options, give advice, and let the policyholder make an informed decision. That is why, in my view, the arguments blaming advocates miss the mark. An advocate cannot file a claim the client never agreed to. In my view, much of the blame placed on policyholders and their representatives is driven by the carrier's own financial interests.
Here is a simple example. Suppose I report a water loss and write a $100,000 estimate, and it turns out there was never a water leak. How would that claim ever get paid? The carrier won't pay it. A jury is unlikely to award it. Pursuing a claim is not free, so how would anyone make money bringing unsupported claims against an insurance carrier? An inflated estimate does not get paid without evidence to support it.
In my time in Texas, I have seen adjusting and consulting become more about profit margins and less about getting it right. I have seen public adjusters turn down complex claims that appeared to be covered because they were hard. I have seen "horse trading" in appraisal over repair costs that I rarely saw seriously debated before. And I have seen carriers use aggressive tactics that discourage policyholders from pursuing claims, including pursuing disputed coinsurance penalties that, in my view, rested on a misapplied valuation tool.
Some inspections are thorough. Some are not.
In insurance claims, the outcome often depends on what an adjuster, engineer, consultant, contractor, or expert says they observed at the property. When you review reports, claim files, photographs, and deposition testimony, a pattern appears. Some inspections are thorough. Some are not.
Some include interviews, document review, prior repair history, weather data, photographs, measurements, and a clear explanation of what was and was not inspected. Others are little more than a short site visit, a handful of photographs, and a short-sighted conclusion.
And if you can show me a file where a carrier's engineer found a separate covered cause of loss and the carrier then helped the policyholder file that separate claim, I would genuinely like to see it.
A lesson from my consulting days: the checklist that missed a broken window
Earlier in my career, before I practiced law, I worked as a consultant on a condominium storm claim where the other side's building-envelope consultants inspected the windows and doors. One window had been broken when a tree limb struck the glass during the storm, and the owner had boarded it up. To me, that was not complicated: the storm drove a tree limb into the window and broke the glass. But I could not get the other side to acknowledge it as storm damage.
Why? Because their inspection protocol was so narrow that it missed the forest for the trees. They were looking for a predetermined set of conditions, such as:
- Sealant issues.
- Permanent deformation at the midspan of lock stiles.
- Permanent deformation of swing door lock stiles.
- Loose anchors.
- Racked frames.
- Permanent set of window system mullions.
- Damaged glazing gaskets of sliding glass doors.
- Damaged pile gaskets at sliding glass door lock jambs.
- Permanent deformation at vent frame sill rails.
- Permanent deformation at vent meeting rails.
- Damaged or missing gaskets.
- Water-damaged interior finishes.
- Rusted steel panels.
- Broken balances.
- Missing glass stops.
- Damaged shutter hardware.
- Peeling paint on railings and frames.
- Loose railing posts.
- Broken glass.
- Permanent deformation and frame separation.
- Damaged locksets.
Somehow, a tree limb breaking a window during a storm did not fit neatly into those categories. That is the problem with inspections that are not truly investigative. They can become outcome-oriented. In my opinion, that is what happened there.
The conversation should have been about the truth. If an inspection protocol only tells you which boxes to check, you may miss the obvious. A thorough inspection should not be limited to a predetermined list of preferred conditions. It should ask what happened, what changed, what evidence exists, what caused the condition, and whether the observed damage is consistent with the reported event.
It also doesn't hurt to include a category for unexplained anomalies that need more investigation. A window boarded up after a storm should not disappear from the analysis just because the inspector is more comfortable talking about gaskets, mullions, lock stiles, and frame deformation, using big words I did not learn in law school.
That experience reinforced something I already believed: a narrow inspection produces narrow opinions. When the methodology is too narrow, the conclusion may sound technical, but it is not necessarily reliable. That is not good enough when the result may decide whether a policyholder gets the money needed to repair a home or business.
What ASTM E2018 is, and what it is not
This is where ASTM E2018 comes in. Its full title is Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process (the current edition is E2018-24). It was not written as an insurance claim standard. It is a guide for conducting property condition assessments (PCAs) of the primary improvements at commercial real estate properties, typically for transactions. But the principles behind it are highly relevant to property damage inspections, because it sets out something the insurance industry badly needs: a disciplined, repeatable process for evaluating the physical condition of a property. (And a disciplined process is exactly what helps an expert's opinion survive a reliability challenge.)
The most important lesson from ASTM E2018 is simple. An inspection is not just walking around a property and looking at the damage the insured told you about. A real property condition assessment is a process. Under the guide, it includes:
- Document review.
- Interviews with people who know the property.
- A walk-through survey by a field observer.
- Research.
- Opinions of the probable cost to address the deficiencies found.
- A written property condition report that explains the observations, limitations, and opinions.
Those pieces matter because they create context. A roof does not exist in a vacuum. A wall stain does not explain itself. Stucco cracking, moisture damage, displaced shingles, failed sealant, interior staining, rot, microbial growth, or structural movement cannot be fairly evaluated without asking basic questions:
- What was the condition before the loss?
- Were there prior repairs?
- Were there prior claims?
- Was maintenance performed?
- Did anyone observe the damage before the inspection?
- Are there photographs from before and after the storm?
- Were permits pulled?
- Were contractors involved?
- Were temporary repairs made?
- Was access limited?
- Was anything hidden, covered, removed, repaired, or altered before the inspection?
These questions are not technicalities. They are the foundation of a reliable inspection. When there are multiple explanations, apply Occam's razor: the explanation that relies on the fewest assumptions is usually the right one. In my experience, jurors tend to credit the most logical explanation over the most scientific-sounding one, because they apply their own knowledge and life experience to the facts.
An engineer may end up on a jury, but more often jurors are everyday people with everyday experience. Having all the facts helps lead them to the truth.
ASTM E2018 recognizes this. It treats the walk-through survey as only one part of the assessment. That is the part many people miss. The physical inspection is important, but it is not the entire investigation. The inspection should be informed by records, interviews, history, and the purpose of the assessment.
The same concept should apply to property damage claims. When an engineer or adjuster reaches a conclusion without reviewing available documents, without interviewing knowledgeable people, without considering prior condition, and without clearly explaining the limits of the inspection, the opinion may look official. But the methodology is weak.
Why it matters in Texas: State Farm v. Simmons
The need for real inspection and investigation protocols is not just theoretical. Look at the Texas Supreme Court's decision in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Simmons, 963 S.W.2d 42 (Tex. 1998).
In that case, the insureds' home was destroyed by fire. State Farm tagged the claim as "suspicious" right away because of a relatively recent theft claim. State Farm later denied the fire claim and raised arson as a defense, but the jury found the insureds had not burned their home. The problem was not simply that State Farm reached the wrong conclusion. The problem was how it got there.
The Texas Supreme Court held there was evidence that State Farm did not make a good-faith effort to objectively investigate the claim, and that it instead conducted an outcome-oriented investigation designed to place the insureds at the center of an "arson triangle."
That is exactly why investigation protocols matter. The insureds had given State Farm the names of several people who may have had grudges against them. State Farm's own adjuster testified that revenge and spite are among the more common motives for arson, and the county fire marshal testified similarly. Yet there was evidence that State Farm never tried to locate or contact those potential suspects before denying the claim.
That is the danger of a narrow investigation. If the goal is to support a denial, the inspection becomes a search for facts that fit the denial. If the goal is to find the truth, the investigation must include facts that may support coverage, facts that may defeat coverage, and facts that call for more investigation.
Simmons is important because the Court said plainly that an insurer "cannot insulate itself from bad faith liability by investigating a claim in a manner calculated to construct a pretextual basis for denial." Id. at 44.
That principle applies directly to property damage inspections. A protocol does not tell the inspector what conclusion to reach. It tells the inspector what must be considered before reaching one:
- What was inspected?
- What was not inspected?
- Who was interviewed?
- What documents were reviewed?
- What alternative causes were considered?
- What facts supported coverage?
- What facts supported denial?
- What assumptions were made?
- What limitations existed?
- What was left unresolved?
Those questions separate an investigation from a conclusion-driven inspection. Simmons also shows why guides like ASTM E2018 are useful, even though E2018 was not written for insurance claims. It forces the professional to think in terms of process: document review, interviews, walk-through survey, observations, limitations, and reporting.
That kind of process was what the evidence showed was missing in Simmons. State Farm had leads that needed to be followed. It had potential witnesses who needed to be contacted. It had a theory, and the jury could find that the investigation was built around that theory instead of the facts. That is not a thorough investigation. That is a conclusion looking for support. A true search for the truth includes gathering all the evidence.
Sit down with the other side's expert
How often does the carrier's expert sit down with the policyholder's expert to understand why they reached different conclusions?
I have done exactly that. Earlier in my career, as a consultant, I was retained as a cost expert on a claim where the defense also had a cost expert. The experts and the attorneys met at the house. There was no legal wrangling, no sequestration of witnesses, and no gamesmanship. The attorneys were there to get to the truth.
We walked the property. We discussed the scope. We talked through the disputed items. We looked at the actual conditions instead of just arguing over reports. That meeting did more to narrow the dispute than any exchange of reports could have. I believe many claims could be resolved faster if more people did exactly this.
Weak methodology leads to weak conclusions
This is especially important in litigation. Courts do not simply look at an expert's title or years of experience. When a witness tells me, "I have been doing this for 20 years," my follow-up question is often whether he has been doing it wrong the whole time.
Courts look at the method. In federal court, the framework comes from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-95 (1993), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Daubert lists factors a judge may consider, including whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate and the standards controlling its operation, and whether it is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. The Court called the inquiry "a flexible one," focused on principles and methodology rather than the conclusions they produce. The U.S. Supreme Court later applied this gatekeeping role to engineers and other non-scientific experts in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Rule 702 was amended in 2023 to make clear that the proponent must show it is more likely than not that the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of reliable methods to the facts.
Texas state courts apply a similar approach under Texas Rule of Evidence 702. In E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995), the Texas Supreme Court required that expert testimony be relevant and rest on a reliable foundation. In Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713, 726 (Tex. 1998), the Court made clear that the reliability requirement applies to all expert testimony, and that a court may conclude "there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered."
ASTM E2018 helps because it gives us a framework to talk about methodology. It does not answer every question in an insurance claim. It does not replace engineering standards. And by its own terms, a PCA is not intended to be technically exhaustive. But it does provide a baseline way of thinking:
- What was reviewed?
- Who was interviewed?
- What was observed?
- What was not observed?
- What assumptions were made?
- What limitations existed?
- What conditions require further investigation?
- What information came from the inspector's own observations, and what came from others?
Those questions should be answered in every serious property damage inspection.
A good report admits its limitations
Another important part of ASTM E2018 is its recognition of limitations. No inspection eliminates all uncertainty:
- Some conditions are concealed.
- Some components are not accessible.
- Some systems require specialized testing.
- Some conclusions require further investigation.
A good report admits that. How often have you seen a carrier's report include a meaningful limitations section? I included one in every expert report I wrote. If the inspection was done after repairs were made, disclose it. If there were multiple claims, disclose it. If there were inaccessible areas, disclose it. If the attic was not inspected because it was too hot, too dangerous, or because the inspector was too busy, disclose it. Bad reports pretend uncertainty does not exist.
In files I have reviewed over the years, I have seen an engineer acknowledge that five different wind events could have caused the damage, yet conclude that the one event claimed was not the cause. I have seen another engineer write that winds as high as claimed would have left evidence such as downed trees and debris, while his own photos showed a blown-over tree.
In my opinion, that is one of the biggest differences between a reliable expert and an unreliable one. A reliable expert tells you what they know, what they observed, what they reviewed, what they could not determine, and what additional work may be needed. And they explain it in a way my kids could understand.
An unreliable expert jumps straight to the conclusion. The first clue is often the language. For example: "As part of our inspection, a floor elevation survey was performed using a digital fluid-column instrument." Just say what you did: "I checked the elevation of the slab using a four-foot level."
Document what is not damaged, too
Property damage inspections need more discipline, more consistency, and better documentation. They need protocols that can be explained, defended, and repeated.
ASTM E2018 is not the final answer for insurance claims, but it is a very useful starting point. It reminds us that property inspections should not be casual, outcome-driven, or improvised. They should follow a process that includes observation, documentation, interviews, document review, identification of limitations, and a clear written explanation of the basis for the opinion. It should also include documenting what is not damaged. That part is often overlooked.
When I inspected a house for damage, I wanted every accessible window checked and photographed, inside and out. Not just the broken ones. Not just the ones the insured mentioned. Every accessible window.
Why? Because window damage, seal failure, and related problems can show up days or weeks after an event. Documenting the apparent lack of damage can be just as important as documenting the damage itself. It creates a baseline. It helps the policyholder. It helps future experts. It helps separate one loss from another. It helps prove what changed. And it keeps the inspector from missing something, serving as a check against shortcuts and time pressure.
That is what good inspection protocols do. They protect the truth. The insurance industry does not suffer from a shortage of opinions. It suffers from a shortage of reliable methodology. Until property damage inspections are treated as a true investigative discipline, we will keep seeing reports that say what happened without adequately explaining how the inspector got there.
That is why ASTM E2018 matters. Not because it controls insurance claims, but because it shows what a real inspection process looks like.
Key takeaways
- ASTM E2018 is a standard guide for baseline property condition assessments of commercial real estate, not an insurance claim standard, but its process-based approach is a useful model for property damage inspections.
- A reliable inspection goes beyond a walk-through: it includes document review, interviews, research, and a written report that states observations, opinions, and limitations.
- Inspecting only the reported damage can miss other damage, and leaves both the policyholder and the carrier without a baseline for future claims.
- In State Farm v. Simmons, the Texas Supreme Court held that an insurer cannot avoid bad-faith liability by conducting an investigation calculated to build a pretextual basis for denial.
- Courts applying Daubert and Texas's Robinson/Gammill line focus on an expert's methodology, not titles or years of experience.
- Good reports disclose what was not inspected, what could not be determined, and what areas showed no damage.
If you have questions about how an inspection or engineering report is being used in a Texas property insurance claim, contact The Claim Attorney for a free case review. Attorneys interested in co-counsel on Texas property insurance matters are also welcome to reach out.
Related reading
- Better Claim Documentation Means Faster Texas Settlements
- Roof Waste and Dump Fees: Proving a Texas Roof Estimate
- Wear and Tear Denials in Texas Property Claims
Originally published on LinkedIn on June 26, 2026. Reviewed and updated September 2026.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change, and results depend on the facts of each case and the language of each policy. Michael P. Bowman is licensed to practice law in Texas and Alabama only. Responsible attorney: Michael P. Bowman, Law Office of Michael P. Bowman PLLC, Austin, Texas.
