Obtaining successful results during a claims investigation or surveillance is dependent on the expertise and leadership of the professional investigator. Even though the client has the final say in scheduling, extending or reducing the number of days of surveillance and authorizing multiple investigators, the investigator should always posture themselves as the expert or specialist in the field. The professional investigator will always be in charge of properly and efficiently implementing the procedures and techniques necessary during the investigation process as well as conveying any and all expert analysis to the client before, during and after.
At times the investigator needs to communicate information or technical knowledge that goes beyond their client’s expertise or comprehension. This is why command presence is essential. Command presence is when you present yourself as someone in authority because of your training, experience, demeanor and integrity as a professional. Your command presence allows the client to utilize your knowledge and expertise to guide them in their decision making processes when handled in a manner that clearly demonstrates the need to direct them outside their normal thought processing and desk top management.
I received an assignment earlier in the year assigned for 2 days of surveillance in a very rural part of Missouri. Two separate surveillance attempts were already made by a national surveillance vendor at this location. The national vendor assigned two different investigators to the case with no results. Additionally, I was informed the claim was targeted at a $400,000.00+ settlement range in the upcoming weeks.
Having the settlement range knowledge and a copy of both reports from the previous surveillance attempts, I initiated my pre-surveillance investigation by analyzing why there were no results from the previous two surveillance attempts. Remember, we are investigators first. Surveillance is a facet of the investigation process.
After carefully examining the surveillance location by viewing the county parcel map, various satellite photos, Google Street View and making calls to county road maintenance and state highway maintenance departments, I understood how a solo investigator application could fail
The heavily-foliaged rural location with a very short figure S winding county road directly in front of the claimant’s residence left the solo investigator two choices for obtaining a surveillance position on this road.
Parking right in front of the claimant’s house and using the “broken down” “out of gas” vehicle appearance for just one day out of the two or “park at either end of the short figure S road you think the claimant may chose to depart the area. The 55 mph state highway that overlooked the back side of the claimant’s property had no suitable off road parking due to extremely steep ravines on either side of the roadway.
The two previous surveillance reports indicated the investigator chose the option of parking at the end of the claimant’s named county road and conducting an occasional drive-by. No video was obtained. One investigator observed the claimant walking on his property while traveling down the state highway during a drive-by procedure, but could not stop to obtain video because of traffic on his tail.
I realized the claims analyst managing the file either did not take the time to view any of these investigative mapping tools or she did not have the expertise to understand how this terrain would present difficulties utilizing a solo investigator application. It was also apparent the nationally structured firm did not conduct or provide this type of pre-surveillance investigation or analysis and therefore was unable to convey the importance these findings unveiled even after their first failed attempt. Again, pre-surveillance investigation should always be the professional investigator’s first protocol for case handling.
Of course I’m not suggesting this one tool alone utilized during a pre-surveillance investigation process will always convince a client special handling is required. I am merely suggesting in this instance the importance of conveying a command presence by providing professional analysis and data that supports the need to address or change what was already documented as failed.
With that said, armed with the knowledge of the target settlement range and the two failed surveillance attempts from a national vendor, I forwarded the satellite photos to the SIU and claims analyst along with other data that clearly revealed stationary surveillance locations to view the claimant’s property were unavailable and a solo investigator application was unreliable under these conditions. I requested authorization for a two-man surveillance team and received authorization. I employed a ground camouflage application directly off the state highway overlooking the claimant’s property while the second investigator stood ready to engage in mobile surveillance at my command. We obtained 2.5 hours of video of the claimant engaging in strenuous physical activities both on and off his property. Several weeks later the SIU overseeing the file informed me our surveillance saved the insurance company several hundred thousand dollars. Gratifying to say the least…to bad we didn’t get bonuses. So the bottom line is…as the experts and specialists in the field begin providing those extra efforts by conducting pre-surveillance investigation and analysis. You might be amazed what you uncover from this process that is of great value when incorporating your command presence in a leadership role.
Mr. Thoms is a former “Special Investigator” who was assigned the task of monitoring the activities of federal offenders in the Midwest Region. Over the past 23 years Mr. Thoms has provided professional investigative services to clients around the Midwest and United States. He is recognized as a “Surveillance Specialist” in claims investigations and domestic matters by utilizing an array of surveillance applications to include specialized camouflage techniques as well as thorough information gathering processes during research and interviews to uncover facts about your case. Mr. Thoms is one of the preferred investigators utilized by a major national insurance company to conduct investigation and surveillance in Missouri and Kansas when vendor outsourcing is required and is an active member with the KC Metro Insurance Fraud Task Force.
Douglas Robert Thoms
(660) 273-9827
Email: info@ksmoinvestigations.com
Website: www.ksmoinvestigations.com