We are all warned about having a preconceived idea as to where to place because the fire prior to the investigation being completed. 921 states an investigation should be conducted without expectation bias, preconception, or prejudice. There are some that say the investigation should start with the pre-conception that the cause of the fire is accidental and there are others that say there should be no preconception. The question is, does the present educational process predispose the investigator to what 921 state an investigation should be conducted without?
A leading educator for public investigators as to the causes of fires suggest that insurance fraud is one of the leading reason for intentionally set fires. This educational group states that the following are red flags of residential arson. This is basically the same type of information that is found in the incendiary chapter of 921. Lets look at some examples as to what is being taught. Remember, these issues may become known prior to the start of the investigation as to the fire’s cause.

Extensive debt or pending bankruptcy. While not direct evidence of fraud, there are reasons to ask additional probing financial questions during the investigation. Just because someone files for bankruptcy and then suffers a fire loss doesn’t necessarily mean the fire is incendiary in nature. (The problem with this statement is that it is justifying extensive debt and bankruptcy with an intentionally set fire. Think about it as you being the person this is talking about. How do you feel about these issues being an indicator of you possibility set the fire at your home.)

An insured is unusually calm after a fire loss at his or her home. Most people are not calm after their house burns down and all of their personal belongings have been destroyed. Usually the owner is visibly upset, crying or very emotional. Actions and behavior to the contrary should be considered abnormal and reason for scrutiny during the investigation. (If you have a fire and you are calm when answering the investigator’s question would you like this being perceived as you being responsible for causing the fire.)

Willingness to accept a small settlement rather than document all the claims losses. This is a person who does not want to go through the process of filling out the required paperwork for his or her claim to be processed. Instead, he or she is willing to take any settlement offered by the insurance company. (So if you house burning down has gotten you depressed to the point you want to get pass what took place, you are perceived as being responsible for the fire.)

No one is home at the time of loss, including the family pet. If a family pet is usually in the home and it is not present when the fire occurs, investigators need to establish why. Many people consider their pets family members, and they choose not to leave them behind to possibly be injured or killed as a result of an intentionally set fire. (Your dog has separation problems to the point it will damage your furnishings. You have a friend that watches the dog when you leave home. The investigator learns from a neighbor about you and the pet not being home before the investigation of the scene is conducted. Do you want the investigator believing based on this information that you may be responsible for the fire.)
Items being moved in and out of the house just prior to the loss. In many fraud-related fires, individuals remove all their “good” personal items and replace them with items of much lesser value or junk. However, when filing the insurance claim, they will list the value of the original good, high-value items to receive the maximum amount of money.

The property is in disrepair, condemned, vacant or about to be demolished. These are situations where an insured is going to have to invest a considerable amount of money into the property to bring it up to code or keep it from being condemned, which he or she may not be able to do. Instead, the insured burns it for the insurance money.

Property normally close to the premises is moved prior to the loss. If an expensive boat or recreational vehicle is always parked near the house but it is not there at the time of the fire, it may indicate a deliberate act. (Do not go fishing and take you boat. That is an indicator of the cause of the fire being a deliberate act.)

I am not saying throw out the baby with the bath water. What I am saying is that the committee should be consistent. There is some good information, such as incendiary devices, that is physical evidence that can be used in the analysis process. What should be removed is the subjective material that address motive and intent if there will be not instruction in the document as to how to develop motive and intent.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group