A Special Section
We have compiled the following articles in an effort to offer claim professionals expanded coverage of current fraud educational practices, trends, and resources. Topics include continuing
education initiatives, weather forensics, and more.
The inclusion of these presentations in no way constitutes an endorsement of any featured programs. They are intended as a tool to help our readers make intelligent, reasonable decisions
on the basis of their individual needs and budget allowances. We hope you find them helpful.
Activity Checks Pay Dividends
Claimant Surveillance Proves Invaluable
By Tim Kizorek
IT HAS BEEN WELL OVER 25 YEARS
since I started my career as an investigator. Much has changed in our industry
since picking up a camera to combat
suspected bodily injury claims. One
service I deem as important today as
I did 20 years ago is the need for an
activities check to be performed prior
to surveillance being conducted. In a
cost-conscience world, one must ask
the question of whether performing an
activities check is worth the money. My
answer: positively, if it is done properly.
There are many reasons why an activities check should be performed. First is
to determine whether your subject actually resides at the address provided
and hasn’t, unbeknownst to the client,
moved out. Second, is to obtain valuable information such as your subject’s
physical description (if an accurate one
is not provided), current vehicles, etc.
The third reason is to determine, discreetly, when your claimant might be
most active so the surveillance can be
scheduled to take place at that time.
The end result can dramatically improve
your surveillance results.
Recently, we performed an activities
check which was assigned along with
three days of surveillance. During the
activities check, we learned that it was
known in the neighborhood that the
claimant was reportedly moving on a
certain day. The client was updated with
this information and the surveillance
was scheduled to take place during the
reported move. The information was, in
fact, accurate and the claimant engaged
in a variety of physical activities contrary
to his allegations.
On the first day, over 4 hours of vid-eotape was obtained while the supposedly injured claimant moved from his