The Rocky Mountain Affiliation of Public Insurance coverage Adjusters (RMAPIA) has produced a complete and scientifically grounded information to dealing with hearth losses that deserves severe consideration from anybody concerned within the adjustment of fire-related insurance coverage claims. 1 These RMAPIA Hearth Protocols are among the many most thorough paperwork I’ve seen on this space, providing not solely a rigorous framework for classifying hearth losses but in addition a formidable depth of element in explaining why sure buildings and contents ought to be changed reasonably than repaired.
Having personally represented purchasers within the Colorado East Troublesome Wildfires and persevering with to characterize owners within the aftermath of the Boulder Wildfires, I perceive firsthand the complexities and emotional toll of fireplace losses. The identical is true for the Los Angeles wildfires, the place most of my latest consideration has been centered.
These experiences make me significantly appreciative of the work achieved by RMAPIA and the consultants behind these protocols. Their efforts characterize a commendable and much-needed contribution to the physique of steerage accessible to all property insurance coverage adjusters, whether or not working for insurers as firm and impartial adjusters or as public adjusters for policyholders.
What stands out concerning the RMAPIA Hearth Protocols is their reliance on onerous science. The doc outlines a Common Hearth Testing Technique, which is grounded in toxicology. This technique allows professionals to evaluate the presence of hazardous byproducts like VOCs, PAHs, heavy metals, dioxins, furans, and asbestos. These should not theoretical considerations. They’re actual threats to human well being, usually invisible to the bare eye, and able to seeping into each crevice of a fire-damaged construction. The protocols go additional to outline poisonous thresholds for every contaminant, present EPA-approved testing strategies, and current clear suggestions on methods to interpret the outcomes.
These protocols divide hearth losses into 4 distinct classes based mostly on whether or not poisonous byproducts are current and whether or not the construction’s integrity has been compromised. These classes are sensible and provide adjusters a roadmap to find out whether or not restore or alternative is acceptable. In instances involving poisonous publicity, the protocols advocate unequivocally for alternative, emphasizing the dangers related to incomplete remediation, encapsulation, or reliance on superficial cleansing.
This dedication to security and complete restoration is admirable. On the identical time, it’s important for me to be balanced and acknowledge that the protocols are clearly written with a public adjuster’s viewpoint in thoughts. They argue forcefully towards insurer methods that favor restore over alternative, usually with the belief that insurers will look to reduce payouts. In doing so, the protocols make a powerful case for policyholder safety, however additionally they assume a excessive normal of proof and price justification that insurers could problem. I don’t consider that these have been peer reviewed.
One other considerate side of the doc is the consideration of distinctive property circumstances, equivalent to massive business buildings or compartmentalized buildings with remoted techniques. The protocols enable for nuance and don’t insist on one-size-fits-all options, although the burden of proving such exceptions is positioned squarely on the shoulders of those that argue towards full alternative.
I believe that essentially the most controversial, however no much less necessary, sections of the doc concern the arguments towards encapsulation or the cleansing of HVAC techniques and contents. The protocols clarify, in granular element, why such strategies are more likely to fail. From the microstructure of wooden and steel to the real-world limitations of restoration crews, the doc leaves little room to consider that deep, pervasive contamination may be safely and successfully reversed. I’m definitely curious what the standard insurer retained hygienists must say about this discovering.
These RMAPIA Hearth Protocols ought to be required studying for all events concerned within the adjustment of fireplace claims, from subject adjusters, claims managers and restoration professionals. I discover that the work seems technically sound and morally centered by inserting the long-term well being and security of house owners and occupants on the middle of each suggestion.
Having stood with wildfire survivors, I consider that is the type of principled, evidence-based method that deserves consideration. I applaud RMAPIA and its management for producing these.
Thought For The Day
“Essentially the most harmful factor on the earth is the sin of inserting revenue earlier than folks.”
— Martin Luther King Jr.
1 Joe Nieusma, David Phalen. RMAPIA Hearth Protocols. Rocky Mountain Affiliation of Public Insurance coverage Adjusters (2025).
