Insurance Fraud Investigation Editing and Proofreading Services

An investigator submits a report on a disability claim recommending denial, describing the claimant as observed performing activities inconsistent with the reported limitations. The file goes to litigation, and the surveillance log shows the claimant was observed for eleven minutes across two days, carrying a shopping bag on one occasion. The report never stated the observation duration, never described the actual activity, and never addressed that the claimant's reported limitation was about sustained activity rather than momentary exertion. The denial is overturned and the insurer faces a bad-faith claim.

We edit what insurance fraud investigators produce — surveillance reports and observation logs, claim investigation summaries and referral recommendations, recorded statement summaries and transcripts, activity check and social media review documentation, special investigation unit referral packages, expert and vendor coordination records, regulatory reporting on suspected fraud, and investigative file notes prepared for coverage counsel. Our editors work on the report a bad-faith claim will be built from.

The surveillance report is the document that either supports a denial or becomes the evidence against the insurer, and its failure is a conclusion about capability drawn from an observation whose actual extent is never disclosed. We work through these so the observation period is stated as specific dates, times and total duration, alongside the periods when the claimant was not observed, since a conclusion about what someone can sustain rests entirely on how long they were actually watched; so what was physically observed is described in specific, neutral terms — the object, its apparent size, the distance carried, the duration — rather than characterised as activity inconsistent with the claimed limitation, which states the conclusion in place of the evidence; so the specific limitation being tested is quoted from the claim file and the observation matched against it directly, given that momentary exertion and sustained capacity are different claims and an observation that disproves one may be irrelevant to the other; so anything observed that is consistent with the claimed limitation is recorded with the same prominence, because a report containing only supporting observations reads as selection rather than investigation once opposing counsel has the raw log; and so any conclusion about capacity is left to the medical or vocational reviewer qualified to make it, since an investigator's inference stated as a finding is the sentence a bad-faith case is built around. Reports written this way hold up when the underlying log is produced.

Everything you send is treated in confidence, including claim files, surveillance records and investigative material. We are editors rather than investigators, claims adjusters or medical reviewers, and we offer no view on claim decisions, evidence or capacity determinations. What we can do is make sure the report shows the observation rather than the conclusion.