Florida Board Develops New Regulations to Combat Fraudulent Engineering Reports in Insurance Claims

Florida’s engineering licensing board is taking steps to crack down on questionable property damage reports submitted during insurance claims disputes after years of mounting complaints about potentially fraudulent assessments.

For several years, critics have alleged that some Florida engineers have provided misleading testimony or submitted dubious reports claiming that minor wind events caused significant property damage. These reports, which often support policyholder lawsuits against insurance companies, have drawn increasing scrutiny from industry professionals.

“Some of these reports are just fraudulent. The engineer didn’t even go and look at the property—they just looked at photos,” said John C. Pistorino, a veteran Miami structural and civil engineer who helped develop south Florida building codes after Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

Pistorino cited examples that strain credibility, including one testifying engineer who claimed to have produced nearly 300 reports in a single year—a volume that raises serious questions about the thoroughness of investigations.

Despite growing concerns from engineers, building officials, and insurance industry representatives, the Florida Board of Professional Engineers has struggled to address the issue effectively. Complaints rose from just one in 2021 to at least nine in 2023, yet the Board has found itself limited in its ability to take disciplinary action.

The core problem lies in the Board’s regulatory framework, which lacks specific rules regarding engineers’ ethics and responsibilities when drafting damage assessments for existing structures. Most of the Board’s standards focus on design criteria for new construction projects rather than damage evaluation protocols.

“I’m frustrated. Engineers for insurance companies are frustrated,” said Pistorino, who serves on the Board’s probable cause committee that reviews complaints. He noted that the Board’s prosecuting attorney has acknowledged difficulty establishing probable cause against engineers, even when complaints appear valid, due to the absence of clear standards.

These questionable engineering assessments have had significant financial consequences for Florida property owners and insurers. Many insurance companies have responded by refusing to write policies for homes with roofs older than 15 years and by substantially increasing premiums across the board.

In response to these challenges, the Board of Engineers is now drafting new rules specifically addressing damage assessment protocols. The proposed regulations would require engineering reports to meet multiple criteria and include more comprehensive documentation.

Under the draft rules, damage assessment reports would need to cite applicable building codes and industry standards, explain failure mechanisms, include meteorological documentation of weather events, and provide historical information from those familiar with the property’s maintenance history.

For tile roofs—a common target of disputed claims in Florida—engineers would need to cite published research supporting their findings, document any tests performed, and reference specific engineering principles backing their conclusions.

Additional provisions would require engineers to follow American Society of Civil Engineers’ published standards, only engage in assessments within their areas of expertise, and personally verify information collected by representatives conducting site visits.

“It’s been a long time coming,” said George Miles, a Daytona Beach consulting engineer who has become known as a whistleblower in Florida engineering circles. Miles has filed multiple complaints against engineers whose reports he claims are based on false conclusions, unproven theories, or irrelevant research.

In one case Miles highlighted, a plaintiff’s engineer cited research purportedly showing that winds under 60 mph could damage relatively new roof shingles. Miles contends the cited study never addressed shingles at all, but rather soffit material under roof eaves.

Some insurance defense attorneys believe the proposed rules could help rein in what they describe as a “cottage industry” of questionable engineering reports that has flourished in Florida’s litigious insurance environment. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, however, argue that engineers need flexibility to counter insurance company denials, particularly as recent Florida legislation has made it more difficult for claimants to pursue cases in court.

The timeline for implementing the new rules remains uncertain. Lawrence Harris, attorney for the Board of Engineers, explained that after the Board finalizes the proposed rules, a public notice will be published, followed by a 21-day comment period. If revisions are made, another comment period will follow before final adoption.

Even after adoption, the rules could face challenges requiring review by an administrative law judge. Harris noted that while the shortest possible timeline for rule adoption is about 100 days, six months is more typical, with some complex rules taking up to two years to implement.

The Florida Legislature may also need to ratify the changes if they’re projected to cost businesses more than $1 million over a five-year period.

Despite the lengthy process ahead, proponents like Pistorino believe the new standards are essential to uphold professional integrity in the engineering field and to combat fraudulent practices that drive up insurance costs for all Floridians.