A considerate remark posted in response to yesterday’s publish, Engineering Requirements or Engineered Outcomes for Insurance coverage Corporationsraises a difficulty that deserves additional dialogue. The remark states:
Chip, that is the scrutiny this course of has wanted from the beginning, and the query you posed on the finish is the proper one.
A big challenge, among the many ones you raised, is that the rule displaces established consensus frameworks comparable to ASTM E2713 with out rationalization or justification. These are requirements developed by a balanced course of with broad skilled participation, and the rule replaces them with prescriptive mandates that strip engineers of the skilled judgment these frameworks are constructed on. Below the proposed guidelines, an engineer who applies sound reasoning to account for real-world situations would face self-discipline for deviating from a guidelines, not for producing unhealthy work.
Moreover, the proposed mandates are usually not with out consequence. Downstream impacts will be simply foreseen: compliance prices that value unbiased engineers out of the attain of the common policyholder, and a regulatory framework that undercuts the courts gatekeeping operate. This dialog must occur within the open. Thanks for bringing this to the general public’s consideration.
For these unfamiliar with ASTM E2713, it isn’t some obscure technical handbook. It’s a extensively accepted guideline utilized by engineers to research constructing injury. At its core, it requires engineers to assemble info, contemplate a number of attainable causes, check these prospects in opposition to proof, after which attain conclusions grounded in science and remark. Importantly, it permits engineers to account for real-world situations, which embrace contemplating the growing old of supplies, prior repairs, set up variability, and the messy actuality of how buildings truly carry out over time.
In different phrases, ASTM E2713 just isn’t a guidelines. It’s a disciplined mind-set. The priority raised by the commenter is that the proposed Florida guidelines seem to maneuver away from that versatile, judgment-based strategy and towards one thing much more inflexible. If true, that could be a vital shift. When a regulatory framework replaces a consensus-based commonplace with out clearly explaining why the present commonplace is insufficient, it raises official questions on each function and impact.
The difficulty just isn’t whether or not requirements ought to exist. In fact they need to. The difficulty is whether or not these requirements information skilled judgment or exchange it.
Engineering, significantly forensic engineering, just isn’t a mechanical train. Two buildings could look related however carry out very otherwise underneath the identical storm situations. Wind doesn’t behave in neat, uniform patterns. Supplies degrade. Fasteners loosen. Repairs alter efficiency. A system constructed on inflexible mandates dangers ignoring these realities in favor of simplified assumptions.
On the similar time, you will need to acknowledge the opposite aspect of the equation. The push for reform didn’t come up in a vacuum. There have been considerations about inconsistent experiences, unsupported conclusions, and, at instances, opinions that seem pushed extra by advocacy than evaluation. These considerations are actual and shouldn’t be dismissed.
A latest formal critique ready by Grindley Williams Engineering 1 reinforces many of those considerations and provides a degree of technical element that engineering regulators should contemplate. In keeping with the Grindley Williams critique, the rule accommodates “structural, definitional, and drafting deficiencies” that create ambiguity, impose impractical burdens, and produce unintended penalties. Extra importantly, it warns that the rule could “create enforcement publicity primarily based on procedural technicalities moderately than substantive engineering misconduct” and “unduly constrain skilled engineering judgment.”
That may be a profound shift. The critique highlights a minimum of 5 points in regards to the proposed guidelines that go on to the guts of equity and accuracy in claims disputes. First, the rule repeatedly makes use of important phrases like “injury” and “injury analysis” with out defining them. Which will sound like a drafting challenge, however it’s much more critical. If engineers can’t clearly decide what’s being regulated, then compliance turns into subjective, and enforcement turns into inconsistent. In a litigation-driven surroundings like insurance coverage claims, that type of ambiguity can simply be used as a weapon.
Second, the rule assumes injury exists. It requires documentation of “noticed and recorded injury,” with out addressing conditions the place no injury is discovered. The critique warns that this might discourage engineers from concluding that no injury exists as a result of such experiences may be seen as noncompliant. That isn’t a minor challenge, however a structural bias in opposition to discovering precise injury.
Third, the rule imposes in depth documentation and testing necessities which may be unattainable in real-world situations. Engineers usually face restricted entry, lacking data, security constraints, and price range limitations. The critique notes that the rule fails to account for these realities, exposing engineers to disciplinary motion even once they conduct competent investigations underneath sensible constraints.
Fourth, the rule seems to mandate reliance on requirements and testing protocols that have been by no means designed for forensic injury evaluation. For instance, laboratory testing strategies developed for brand new building are being utilized to aged, in-service roofs—situations that engineers know are basically completely different. The critique particularly factors out that sure referenced assessments “don’t consider present discipline situations” and are usually not designed to find out real-world injury.
Fifth, and maybe most troubling, the rule introduces necessary procedural necessities that improve value with out clear profit. The critique warns that compliance will “considerably improve the time, value, {and professional} legal responsibility publicity” related to engineering experiences, resulting in larger prices for policyholders and lowered entry to unbiased consultants.
This ties instantly again to the commenter’s level in my weblog publish. If unbiased engineers are priced out of the market and changed by giant corporations that may soak up compliance prices, the sensible impact just isn’t neutrality. It’s consolidation. And consolidation, in a claims surroundings, tends to favor repeat gamers employed by the insurance coverage trade.
There may be additionally a deeper authorized challenge at play. The critique notes that the rule creates enforcement danger primarily based on whether or not an engineer adopted each procedural requirement moderately than whether or not the engineering opinion is sound. That shifts the main target away from substance and towards compliance. Within the courtroom, that issues. Courts are supposed to judge skilled testimony primarily based on reliability, methodology, and credibility. If regulatory compliance turns into the dominant measure, we danger making a parallel system the place an opinion will be technically right however nonetheless topic to self-discipline for failing to verify each field.
That isn’t how fact is meant to be decided.
ASTM requirements have been developed by broad consensus for that cause. They information engineers with out changing their pondering. They permit engineers to adapt to real-world situations moderately than forcing actuality right into a inflexible framework.
The proposed rule, as at the moment drafted, dangers reversing that strategy. It replaces versatile, science-based reasoning with prescriptive mandates. It creates ambiguity the place readability is required. It will increase value the place entry must be protected. And it introduces the likelihood that engineers will probably be judged not by the standard of their evaluation, however by their adherence to a guidelines.
The remark that prompted this dialogue was precisely proper. This dialog must occur within the open. As a result of the query is now not nearly engineering requirements. It’s about who controls the end result. That isn’t a theoretical concern. It’s a sensible one.
Thought For The Day
“In concept, there is no such thing as a distinction between concept and apply. In apply, there’s.”
— Yogi Berra
1 Formal Technical Critique of Proposed Rule, Chapter 61G15-38: Accountability Guidelines of Skilled Engineers Regarding the Analysis of Broken Buildings. Grindley Williams Engineering. (March 2026).
