The Experience Gap: Part 4

daniel33876

Sep 2

6 min read

Construction Knowledge Changes What You See

Two people can walk through the same damaged building, photograph the same conditions, and leave with completely different understandings of the loss.

Both may see water staining on a ceiling. Both may photograph damaged flooring, displaced roofing materials, cracked exterior finishes, or wet insulation. The difference is what happens next. Someone familiar primarily with claims may document what is visibly damaged. Someone who understands how buildings are actually constructed begins asking what had to happen inside the building assembly for that damage to appear in the first place, what else may have been affected, and what will have to be disturbed to properly complete the repairs.

That distinction becomes increasingly important as the property becomes larger and more complicated. Commercial buildings, multifamily properties, agricultural facilities, institutional campuses, and custom homes are not collections of isolated materials. They are interconnected systems, and repairing one damaged component often requires understanding several others.

Construction knowledge changes what you see because it changes the questions you know to ask.

Damage Rarely Stops Where You Can See It

A water stain on drywall is evidence of a condition, not necessarily the beginning and end of the damage.

Where did the water enter? What path did it travel before becoming visible? What materials did it encounter along the way? Is insulation concealed behind the finish? Is the wall or roof assembly capable of drying in place? Are electrical components located within the affected cavity? Did moisture migrate laterally or vertically beyond the visible staining?

The same principle applies throughout a building.

A damaged roof component cannot always be considered independently of the underlayment, decking, flashing, insulation, adjacent wall assemblies, penetrations, or interior finishes beneath it. Exterior cladding may conceal weather barriers, flashings, fasteners, insulation, sheathing, and structural components. Mechanical equipment may be physically connected to curbs, electrical systems, ductwork, controls, piping, and roofing assemblies.

The visible damage tells you where to begin looking. Construction knowledge helps determine where the investigation should go next. That is a fundamentally different approach from simply creating a list of damaged materials.

Buildings Have to Come Apart Before They Can Go Back Together

This is one of the most frequently misunderstood aspects of property damage estimating.

A finished building may make the repair appear deceptively simple because most of the work required to construct it is hidden. Once damage occurs, however, the repair has to be performed in the real world, and that means accounting for how the building was assembled in the first place.

Suppose a damaged component is located behind another material that was not itself damaged. The undamaged material may still have to be removed to gain access. Adjacent finishes may need to be detached and reset. Mechanical or electrical components may need to be disconnected. Temporary protection may be required while the building envelope is open. Once the damaged component is replaced, everything disturbed to reach it has to be properly reconstructed.

None of those operations necessarily represent additional storm damage. They represent the work required to perform the repair. That distinction is important because an estimate based solely upon a list of visibly damaged materials can look perfectly reasonable on paper while being practically impossible to execute in the field.

Anyone who has actually managed construction understands that the question is not simply, “What material is damaged?” The better question is, “What has to happen to repair it?”

Sequence Can Change the Entire Repair

Construction occurs in an order, and that order matters.

In some cases, the full extent of the damage cannot be determined until affected finishes or building components are removed, exposing conditions that were concealed during the initial inspection. Temporary protection may be required before damaged exterior assemblies are opened. Mechanical equipment may have to be removed before roofing work can proceed. Interior finishes may have to wait until the building envelope is watertight and affected materials have been properly dried. Code inspections may have to occur before assemblies can be closed.

On a large property, those relationships become considerably more complicated because multiple trades may be working across several buildings while portions of the property remain occupied or operational. This is where estimating and actual construction can begin to separate.

A line item can describe a task and assign a price to it. It cannot determine whether the proposed repair sequence makes sense. Estimating software does not know that one component blocks access to another, that a particular assembly cannot reasonably be repaired in the order shown, or that completing one operation will require disturbing work assigned to another trade. People determine that, and the quality of that determination depends heavily upon what they understand about construction.

Codes and Manufacturer Requirements Are Not Footnotes

Another area where construction knowledge becomes critical is determining how damaged building components can actually be reconstructed.

The building that existed immediately before the loss may have been constructed years or decades earlier. Materials change. Installation methods change. Building codes change. Manufacturer requirements change. Products are discontinued, assemblies evolve, and methods that were accepted when the property was originally constructed may no longer be appropriate or permitted when substantial repairs are performed.

That does not mean every loss automatically triggers code upgrades or that every manufacturer requirement creates insurance coverage. Coverage remains governed by the policy and the circumstances of the loss. It does mean that developing a realistic repair methodology requires understanding the requirements that govern the work.

A repair estimate that ignores those considerations may describe a repair that cannot actually be permitted, warranted, installed, or completed as written.

That problem becomes much more significant on complex losses because the consequences can extend beyond a single construction line item. A change in repair methodology can affect demolition, access, materials, labor, permitting, sequencing, project duration, and potentially other portions of the claim.

Knowing What You Don't Know Is Part of the Experience

Construction knowledge does not mean pretending to be an engineer, architect, electrician, environmental professional, or building official. In fact, experience should produce the opposite result.

Experience teaches you to recognize when a condition exceeds your expertise and when another professional needs to be involved. More importantly, it helps you determine what question that professional needs to answer.

There is an enormous difference between hiring an expert simply because a claim has become complicated and engaging the appropriate expert with a clearly defined technical question. That requires enough knowledge to recognize the issue in the first place.

After decades of working with damaged properties from both the construction and insurance claims sides, I have learned that some of the most consequential observations begin with something that simply does not look right. The value of experience is not having an immediate answer to every condition. It is recognizing when the available answer is incomplete and knowing where to look next.

The Experience Gap Is Often Hidden Behind the Estimate

Property owners understandably tend to compare estimates by looking at the number on the last page. That can conceal the most important differences.

Two estimates can contain different totals because of pricing, but they can also differ because the people preparing them have fundamentally different understandings of what the repair requires. One may account primarily for the materials showing visible damage. Another may recognize the access, sequencing, temporary work, related trades, code considerations, and reconstruction operations required to turn those individual repairs into a workable project.

That difference is not created by estimating software. It exists before the first line item is ever entered.

For more than twenty-five years, my work has crossed both sides of that divide. I have investigated and handled complex property claims, prepared multimillion dollar damage estimates, managed construction projects, developed budgets and schedules, selected and supervised subcontractors, reviewed plans and specifications, performed quantity takeoffs, evaluated building code compliance, and worked with contractors, engineers, consultants, attorneys, and insurance professionals.

That experience has shaped how Pivotal approaches a damaged property today. I am not simply looking for what is damaged. I am trying to understand the building. Because until you understand how the building works, it is difficult to understand what it will actually take to put it back together.

Coming Next: Ask Better Questions

Throughout The Experience Gap, we have examined what a license does not tell you, what happens behind the scenes of a complex insurance claim, and why construction knowledge can fundamentally change the way a loss is investigated and developed.

That raises an obvious question.

How is a property owner supposed to know whether the Public Adjuster they are considering actually possesses that experience?

In Part 5 of The Experience Gap, we'll examine how property owners can look beyond licenses, websites, sales pitches, and claims of experience when choosing a Public Adjuster.

Anyone can tell you they are qualified to handle a complex loss. The more important question is whether their experience holds up when you look beneath the surface.

We'll explore how to recognize the difference without giving you a list of rehearsed questions or “right answers” that anyone can memorize.