How Structural Engineers Really Assess Storm and Insurance Damage

Interviewer: Today we’re talking about insurance building claims after storms or major weather events. When you first arrive at a property where the owner believes the event caused the damage, what are you looking for before you form any opinion?

Matt Cornell: I try not to enter an insurance claim job with too many preconceptions. I have an understanding of what the claimed event is, but I don’t necessarily know all the specifics. So I’ll ask the insured homeowner to tell me what happened, when it happened, whether they were home at the time, and what they noticed. Then they’ve got the opportunity to walk me around the property and give me a good idea of what they think is going on. I take photos and listen, and the inspection progresses from there.

Interviewer: Once you’re listening to them and walking through their observations, what’s the first physical detail you want to check to start distinguishing event-driven damage from something pre-existing?

Matt Cornell: It’s really difficult for an engineer, or anyone, to identify new damage compared to old damage without prior knowledge of the building. That’s almost impossible to get. There are online references, real estate photos, and sources like Google Street View, but at the end of the day we’re relying on the homeowner’s description, our knowledge of the event, and some research back in the office to form an opinion on whether the claimed event has possibly caused the damage we’re being shown.

Interviewer: So once you’re back at the office doing that research, checking weather data, event records or historical photos, what specific physical clue or inconsistency would make you pause and reconsider your initial impression?

Matt Cornell: If the damage shows up in real estate photos, or if it looks like someone has been careful to scrub an area, we’ll pull on that string. We might contact the real estate agent to get photos taken before they were uploaded to the system, or even go to the original photographer. We’re looking for photos, maybe from the insured person if they had a party in the room and there’s the wall, floor or roof in the background, that show the property was fine before the insured event and damaged after it. That pre-existing condition prior to the event is what we’re really interested in, to confirm the damage was caused by the insured event.

Interviewer: Why does confirming that timeline matter so much for what happens next for the homeowner?

Matt Cornell: Causation is a big part of why an engineer gets invited to a site. An insurance company wants to be assured the damage was caused by the insured event, and that determines how they handle the claim. Often, alongside causation, we’re asked to provide drawings, rectification advice or repair details. If a tree has hit a roof and broken the trusses, an engineer gets involved to provide details for the insurance company and builders to quote and carry out the work. Where it’s non-structural, say cracks in plasterboard, we’re asked for an opinion on whether that could have been caused by the insured event. If it has, and it’s not structural damage, there’s still rectification required, but it won’t necessarily need a full scope from a structural engineer.

Interviewer: If you determine it’s not structural, but the homeowner still sees it as major damage, how do you explain that in a way that reassures them without minimising what they feel?

Matt Cornell: Structural elements are a lot stronger than most people realise. The wall frame and studs, especially in modern construction, and arguably more so in older hardwood-framed construction, are stronger than most people give them credit for. It takes a fair bit of damage for a building to become structurally unsafe or irreparable. So when we’re talking about cracks in a wall, the plasterboard is typically aesthetic. It’s not part of the main structure, and there’s a certain amount of reassurance we can give homeowners. But some homeowners are a long way down the track by the time an engineer gets there, having worried about their wall or the structural stability of their property for a long time, and it takes some persuading to explain that the plasterboard isn’t part of the structure; the frame is. Quite legitimately, they might then ask how we know the inside hasn’t also been damaged. The answer is that when plasterboard is cracked, it’s often replaced under the claim, and that gives the structural engineer or builder the opportunity to inspect the frame once the cladding is stripped out and confirm whether it needs repair. Often the cladding has already been removed by the time we get on site, so we can assess the structure visibly for damage and advise on rectification.

Interviewer: Once you’ve confirmed what’s structural and what’s not, what would you typically outline as next steps if you’ve found a genuine structural issue?

Matt Cornell: Next steps are fairly straightforward. We’re qualified and experienced to provide rectification details. We might provide drawings showing what work needs to be completed, how far that extent goes (a whole wall or just part of one), what the replacement members are, and which timber sizes to use. For framing over a window or doorway, we’ll give the insurance company sizes for new timber members, not necessarily identical to the original, because load codes and timber availability change over time. If the old member was a certain grade of pine, we might specify a different grade depending on availability and what the insurance company’s coverage allows. For an old, heritage-listed house with damaged hardwood, there’s a good chance it will go back like-for-like to maintain the heritage character.

Interviewer: When you’re writing that final report, what do you always make sure is clearly detailed, and what do you deliberately avoid saying or speculating on?

Matt Cornell: We always include photographic evidence and the research that helped us form an opinion, including sources like realestate.com.au. That validates where our ideas came from and why we’re saying what we’re saying. We generally won’t include extracts from current standards, because we’re providing drawings and a set of standard notes and details on how to do the work instead. What we’ll almost never do is state definitively that damage was not caused by the insured event, because we weren’t at the property before the loss occurred, so we don’t know for certain. We use engineering principles and experience to form an opinion on whether the damage is attributable to the insured event, but we’ll frame it in terms of likelihood, not certainty.

Interviewer: When you hand that report over, what’s the key thing you want the client or insurer to understand about how to move forward?

Matt Cornell: We provide our reports to building consultants so they can put together a scope of work for the insurance company, which then gets distributed to builders. So the report needs to clearly identify what aspects need to go into that building scope. That’s really the core of it.

Interviewer: In your experience, what’s a common misconception about structural damage or repair that you often have to correct?

Matt Cornell: Homeowners, and even insurance companies, aren’t always aware that the age of a building affects what a repair can realistically achieve. The expectation is often that a repaired building will come out essentially as good as new. Builders can do a certain amount of work on an old house that doesn’t meet current standards, but they’re unlikely to guarantee bringing the whole building up to current standards, and engineers can’t help with that either. We do a good job of repairing damage and getting a building back to better than it was before the damage, but that’s not always the same as bringing it to current standards. Some buildings were never fully compliant to begin with. We’re happy to answer specific questions, for example whether new roof sheeting will be safe and comply, but we’ll never say a whole building we haven’t fully inspected is now compliant with current standards. There’s a certain scope that a rectifying builder or engineer can reasonably work within. Sometimes builders go further than expected because they’re guaranteeing their own work, which offers them some protection, but that doesn’t mean a homeowner is entitled to a brand-new home just because part of it was damaged.

Interviewer: Let’s shift into how you communicate this to clients in plain English. What’s your key principle for explaining complex findings so they feel understood?

Matt Cornell: We try not to make it too complex when explaining things to an insured person. But we’re also writing the report for the insurance company, the building consultant and the loss adjuster. A lot of people read it, so we avoid heavy technical terminology and try to keep it readable, so people understand what happened, what we think and what needs to be done. They can then draw their own conclusions, and if they want further engineering advice, they’re welcome to get an independent opinion from another engineer.

Interviewer: Let’s touch on what goes into being an expert witness in these disputes. What shifts for you in that role?

Matt Cornell: Expert witness work increases the stakes dramatically. Everything we say, do on site and write is going to be scrutinised by people doing their best to find reasons we haven’t done a good job, or that we’ve made a mistake or miscommunicated something. It’s a lot more stressful. We’re more careful, and we justify our decisions just as carefully as we always do, but with the added awareness that there’s a dispute in play.

Matt Cornell: And for anyone who’s watched this far, you’re welcome to put your questions in the comments below. I’d love to hear your experiences with insurance events, building consultants and structural engineers assessing your property. What went right, and what went wrong? I’m Matt Cornell from Cornell Engineers. I hope this has been useful, and I’ll catch up with you next time.