jar546
CBO
Hurricane Sandy left a devastating mark on the East Coast in October 2012, leading to widespread destruction and tens of thousands of flood damage claims. However, the aftermath of these claims revealed significant issues in the process used for assessing structural flood damage. A 2017 report by John F. Mann, PE, sheds light on engineering deficiencies and systemic failures, raising questions about fairness and accuracy in handling claims.
Background: The Mero Claim and Altered Reports
The controversy surrounding "altered" engineering reports came to light primarily through the Mero claim. The original report, prepared by Andrew S. Braum, PE, concluded that hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces caused structural damage to the foundation of a single-family house in East Rockaway, NY. However, this report was modified by HiRise Engineering to attribute the damage to "soil settlement due to consolidation," a determination that excluded coverage under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The alteration of engineering reports sparked public outrage and investigations, including a feature on 60 Minutes. It was alleged that HiRise Engineering altered Braum's reports without his knowledge, impacting the outcomes of claims for homeowners.
Key Findings from the Mann Report
John F. Mann, a structural engineer with decades of experience, conducted an in-depth evaluation of the processes used by FEMA and affiliated firms. His key findings include:
The Mann report outlines several recommendations to improve the handling of structural flood damage claims, including:
The issues raised by Mann underscore the need for robust standards in flood damage assessments to ensure fairness for both policyholders and insurers. They also highlight the importance of qualified professionals in managing the complex challenges of floodplain management, particularly as climate change increases the frequency and severity of storms.
Conclusion
The lessons from Hurricane Sandy's aftermath serve as a wake-up call for improving the integrity and transparency of flood damage assessments. By implementing the reforms outlined in the Mann report, FEMA and associated entities can rebuild trust and ensure that the National Flood Insurance Program meets its intended purpose.
Background: The Mero Claim and Altered Reports
The controversy surrounding "altered" engineering reports came to light primarily through the Mero claim. The original report, prepared by Andrew S. Braum, PE, concluded that hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces caused structural damage to the foundation of a single-family house in East Rockaway, NY. However, this report was modified by HiRise Engineering to attribute the damage to "soil settlement due to consolidation," a determination that excluded coverage under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The alteration of engineering reports sparked public outrage and investigations, including a feature on 60 Minutes. It was alleged that HiRise Engineering altered Braum's reports without his knowledge, impacting the outcomes of claims for homeowners.
Key Findings from the Mann Report
John F. Mann, a structural engineer with decades of experience, conducted an in-depth evaluation of the processes used by FEMA and affiliated firms. His key findings include:
- Deficiencies in Engineering Expertise: The original report by Braum was deemed grossly inadequate, citing a lack of qualifications and a failure to provide detailed engineering analysis. As a mechanical engineer specializing in air quality, Braum was not qualified to evaluate structural flood damage.
- Systemic Failures in Oversight: HiRise Engineering failed to ensure proper supervision and peer review of reports. The modifications made to Braum's report were unauthorized and lacked technical merit.
- Implications of Altered Reports: While Braum alleged that 96% of his reports were altered, Mann's analysis suggests that the original reports were often so deficient that they may not have warranted coverage even without modifications.
The Mann report outlines several recommendations to improve the handling of structural flood damage claims, including:
- Establishing a structured peer review process involving qualified professional engineers.
- Requiring that all decisions on claims be based on certified engineering reports.
- Developing standard manuals for engineers and homeowners to address common flood damage issues.
- Enhancing education and training for engineers and adjusters involved in post-storm evaluations.
The issues raised by Mann underscore the need for robust standards in flood damage assessments to ensure fairness for both policyholders and insurers. They also highlight the importance of qualified professionals in managing the complex challenges of floodplain management, particularly as climate change increases the frequency and severity of storms.
Conclusion
The lessons from Hurricane Sandy's aftermath serve as a wake-up call for improving the integrity and transparency of flood damage assessments. By implementing the reforms outlined in the Mann report, FEMA and associated entities can rebuild trust and ensure that the National Flood Insurance Program meets its intended purpose.