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 correct one.
A major difficulty, among the many ones you raised, is that the rule displaces established consensus frameworks akin to ASTM E2713 with out rationalization or justification. These are requirements developed by means of 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 dangerous work.
Moreover, the proposed mandates usually are not with out consequence. Downstream impacts could be simply foreseen: compliance prices that value unbiased engineers out of the attain of the typical policyholder, and a regulatory framework that undercuts the courts gatekeeping perform. This dialog must occur within the open. Thanks for bringing this to the general public’s consideration.
For these unfamiliar with ASTM E2713, it’s not some obscure technical guide. It’s a extensively accepted guideline utilized by engineers to research constructing injury. At its core, it requires engineers to assemble details, take into account a number of potential causes, take a look at these potentialities towards proof, after which attain conclusions grounded in science and commentary. Importantly, it permits engineers to account for real-world situations, which embody contemplating the getting old of supplies, prior repairs, set up variability, and the messy actuality of how constructions 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 method and towards one thing way more inflexible. If true, that could be a important shift. When a regulatory framework replaces a consensus-based customary with out clearly explaining why the present customary is insufficient, it raises professional questions on each goal 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, notably forensic engineering, just isn’t a mechanical train. Two buildings might look related however carry out very in a different way below 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 identical time, you will need to acknowledge the opposite facet of the equation. The push for reform didn’t come up in a vacuum. There have been issues about inconsistent studies, unsupported conclusions, and, at instances, opinions that seem pushed extra by advocacy than evaluation. These issues are actual and shouldn’t be dismissed.
A current formal critique ready by Grindley Williams Engineering 1 reinforces many of those issues and provides a stage of technical element that engineering regulators should take into account. In response to the Grindley Williams critique, the rule comprises “structural, definitional, and drafting deficiencies” that create ambiguity, impose impractical burdens, and produce unintended penalties. Extra importantly, it warns that the rule might “create enforcement publicity primarily based on procedural technicalities quite than substantive engineering misconduct” and “unduly constrain skilled engineering judgment.”
That may be a profound shift. The critique highlights not less than 5 points concerning the proposed guidelines that go on to the center of equity and accuracy in claims disputes. First, the rule repeatedly makes use of vital phrases like “injury” and “injury analysis” with out defining them. That will sound like a drafting difficulty, however it’s way more severe. If engineers can not clearly decide what’s being regulated, then compliance turns into subjective, and enforcement turns into inconsistent. In a litigation-driven atmosphere 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 studies is likely to be considered as noncompliant. That’s not a minor difficulty, however a structural bias towards discovering precise injury.
Third, the rule imposes in depth documentation and testing necessities which may be unattainable in real-world situations. Engineers typically face restricted entry, lacking information, security constraints, and funds limitations. The critique notes that the rule fails to account for these realities, exposing engineers to disciplinary motion even once they conduct competent investigations below sensible constraints.
Fourth, the rule seems to mandate reliance on requirements and testing protocols that had been by no means designed for forensic injury evaluation. For instance, laboratory testing strategies developed for brand spanking new development are being utilized to aged, in-service roofs—situations that engineers know are essentially completely different. The critique particularly factors out that sure referenced checks “don’t consider current discipline situations” and usually are 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 studies, resulting in greater prices for policyholders and lowered entry to unbiased consultants.
This ties straight again to the commenter’s level in my weblog publish. If unbiased engineers are priced out of the market and changed by giant companies that may soak up compliance prices, the sensible impact just isn’t neutrality. It’s consolidation. And consolidation, in a claims atmosphere, tends to favor repeat gamers employed by the insurance coverage business.
There may be additionally a deeper authorized difficulty at play. The critique notes that the rule creates enforcement threat primarily based on whether or not an engineer adopted each procedural requirement quite 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 guage professional testimony primarily based on reliability, methodology, and credibility. If regulatory compliance turns into the dominant measure, we threat making a parallel system the place an opinion could be technically appropriate however nonetheless topic to self-discipline for failing to verify each field.
That’s not how reality is meant to be decided.
ASTM requirements had been developed by means of broad consensus for that cause. They information engineers with out changing their considering. They permit engineers to adapt to real-world situations quite than forcing actuality right into a inflexible framework.
The proposed rule, as presently drafted, dangers reversing that method. It replaces versatile, science-based reasoning with prescriptive mandates. It creates ambiguity the place readability is required. It will increase value the place entry ought to be protected. And it introduces the chance that engineers will likely 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 result. That’s not 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).
