There is a quiet but profound shift in how insurers handle property insurance claims. For decades, the gold standard of claims handling involved a trained field adjuster who inspected the loss, evaluated the damage, and had the authority to move the claim toward resolution. That model is eroding.

Today, we are seeing the rise of what is often called “direct inspection,” “virtual inspection,” or “inspection-only” adjustments.  Under these models, the person who visits the property is often not the one making the estimating or adjustment decisions. Instead, they gather data with photos, measurements, and observations, while a desk adjuster who never visits the loss site performs the coverage analysis, writes the estimate, and decides what will be paid on the loss.

This is not speculation by me. It is now being openly described by vendors serving the insurance industry. For example, Hancock Claims Consultants explains that in a “Direct Inspection,” the adjuster sends the assignment to Hancock, which then completes the inspection “without the adjuster present” and returns the documentation so the adjuster can settle the claim. 1

That is a remarkable sentence when you stop and think about it. The person making the decision may never visit the loss.

Hancock also makes clear why this model is gaining traction. As claim volume increases, the industry is looking for methods that are “cost-effective” and “cycle time sensitive,” with technology enabling faster inspections and quicker reporting.

Efficiency is not the problem. Yet, when efficiency begins to redefine the claims process itself, we need to ask whether something important is being lost.

I was reminded of a 2023 satirical blog I wrote featuring a dog with a camera strapped to its head, titled Meet The New Low-Cost Independent Field Adjuster. At the time, it was meant to provoke a smile and a little discomfort. Today, it feels less like satire and more like a warning. As I wrote then:

Why is it increasingly rare to encounter seasoned property insurance field adjusters equipped with the full authority to settle claims? Reflecting on my 40-year journey in the insurance claims industry, I recall a time when businesses and individuals were served by adept and proficient adjusters. It begs the question: ‘Is the role of the experienced property insurance field adjuster diminishing?

…

So, a question I’m frequently posed is: Why do so many insurance claims culminate in disputes, necessitating mediation, appraisal, arbitration, or litigation? A significant part of the answer lies in the evolving dynamics of the insurance industry. Cost-conscious managers and financial overseers have transformed numerous insurance companies into entities that prioritize marketing over the actual delivery of promises. The unfortunate result? A decline in the number of quality personnel dedicated to fulfilling the very promises these insurance companies market when losses require that claims be paid fully and promptly.

That question is no longer theoretical. Consider how this new model is being marketed to property adjusters themselves. One recent recruiting advertisement from Pacesetter Claims announced it had contracts with multiple major carriers and states:

Inspection Only (IO)… Perform a thorough inspection, take high-quality photos, and complete a simple scope sheet… Zero Xactimate writing. Once you leave the driveway, your work on that file is complete.

The recruiting advertisement goes on to promote the ability to “double your daily inspection count” and be “off the clock by dinner.”

That is the industry describing the type of talent it seeks. To be fair, there is no indication that Pacesetter is hiring unlicensed individuals. Many companies that use this model employ licensed adjusters in field-inspection roles. The issue is not licensing labels. It is the function and structure.

When the person on site is told to perform a “thorough inspection” but only completes a simplified scope and then disengages entirely from the claim, we should ask a fundamental question:

Who are the claims people making the critical decisions, and how are they doing it?

Hancock’s own discussion highlights the tradeoffs. These models allow for speed, scale, and rapid turnaround. Even proponents of virtual and remote inspection models acknowledge that the more you rely on remote processes, the more dependent you become on what is captured and what is not. In property claims, the details are everything, and how are those captured by people not speaking with or visiting the loss site with the policyholder?

Water intrusion does not always show up in a photograph. Structural issues are not always obvious from a quick inspection. Causation is rarely a checklist exercise. The difference between a complete and incomplete inspection is often the difference between a fully paid claim and a disputed one.

I suggest that when the adjustment process is a system designed for volume, with adjusters encouraged to increase inspection counts, simplify their scope, and move on quickly, the risk of error is not theoretical. The claim becomes defined by what was captured efficiently and designed for cost reduction, not necessarily by what damage actually exists. The policyholders will lose benefits with this claims process. Unfortunately, it seems to be by design.

The remote desk adjuster, no matter how capable, is then working from a constrained record. Insurance companies are required to conduct reasonable investigations. That obligation does not change simply because the industry has found ways to process claims at lower cost. A fragmented process in which one person is intentionally limited to what is inspected and reported, while another off-site person evaluates the extent of damage and determines coverage, is a claims process in which neither person fully owns the outcome. It is inherently more difficult to ensure that the investigation of coverage and evaluation of damage is complete, unbiased, and accurate.

None of this means that technology should be rejected. It should not. Virtual tools, remote collaboration, and data-driven workflows can improve claims handling when used properly. But they must enhance judgment rather than replace it. They must support thoroughness and ensure that all benefits are determined and paid.

The educated, trained, and experienced field adjusters were never just photographers. They were the eyes, ears, and judgment of the claim. They asked questions, tested assumptions, and recognized when something did not add up. When that role is reduced to capturing images and filling out a simplified form, we should not be surprised if something has drastically changed in the property insurance adjustment.

Insurance is not a volume business. It is a promise. Any claims process, no matter how efficient, that weakens the quality of the coverage investigation and damage evaluation risks weakening that promise to the policyholder.

Thought For The Day

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.”
— Benjamin Franklin

1 Virtual Inspection vs. Onsite Inspection: How to Make the Right Choice. Hancock Claims Consultants. Last accessed online Apr. 1, 2026: https://hancockclaims.com/how-to-decide-between-onsite-and-virtual-inspections/