Copyright held by The John Cooke Fraud Report. Reprint rights are granted with attribution to The John Cooke Fraud Report with a link to this website.
By Anthony Zammuto
When selecting a surveillance or special investigation vendor, the decision maker will typically speak with a sales representative, look over brochures, verify licenses and insurance coverage, check a few references and maybe even meet with the owner or manager. While these steps are helpful, the most important question is seldom asked. “Exactly who will you be sending out to do my work?”
The fact is that in nearly every state, a person who holds a detective agency license can hire, off the street, virtually anyone without a serious criminal record and send him or her out on a high stakes file that very same day with zero training. This new “investigator” may have never even met the agency license holder and, instead, may have been hired by a local manager or other employee. In fact, he or she could have been working in a car wash for the past ten years. A low paid, unqualified, untrained or non “career motivated” person not only can miss untold opportunities on a surveillance or investigation, but may even have little incentive to remain on the surveillance for the entire time charged. Worse yet, so many independent decisions, judgments and contacts are made in the course of a field investigation that the potential is significant for errors that could create serious legal or other liabilities.
It matters little if the agency owner or licensee has stellar credentials, passed a rigorous exam, and has 25 years of experience. That’s because he’s probably not the guy who is going to get up at 5: 00 AM and follow the claimant around all day. Remember that the people whose actions, decisions and conduct will make or break an investigation are the actual field investigators. They should be the focus of most of the attention. Keep in mind that because some two thirds of a detective agency’s revenue can be expended on direct payroll and benefits costs, the temptation to cut corners is obvious. It is in the claims handlers’ interest to make sure that’s not the case with the individuals assigned to work his or her files.
Recently, SIU personnel have begun insisting on more information about who is actually sent out on their files rather than relying on the vendors to make the selections without any questions asked. One way they accomplish this is to require a biographical sketch of each field investigator employed by the supplier. This should include the investigator’s name, length of service, relevant prior experience, educational achievements and any other assets such as professional designations or foreign language skills.
While it shouldn’t be necessary to become a personnel manager for the vendors, it may be a good idea to take a closer look at what kind of people are actually being employed. If the list looks questionable, only those persons specifically approved should be used. Keep in mind that an agency that is doing the right thing will probably be delighted to show details about its staff. However, if several of the investigators were cab drivers until last week, such questions may make them uncomfortable. Remember if there were a problem due to an incompetent of unqualified investigator, the plaintiff attorney probably wouldn’t be shy about asking why the defense did not ask those questions before the vendor was hired.
Here are 20 issues to address that will provide a better idea about a potential vendor’s operation:
- Employment status (Fulltime career people vs. part timers or independent contractors.)
- Equipment (Up to date equipment, supplied by the company, should be in investigator’s possession during all assignments.
- Specifics of the training program.
- Benefits/incentive/pay systems. (Don’t be shy; plaintiff attorneys routinely ask this.)
- Staff tenure/turnovers. (Nobody invests much in training a staff that doesn’t stay.)
- Backgrounds and confidentials of staff.
- Characteristics sought in new hires. (Good character is critical.)
- Understanding of entrapment, trespassing, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and any other legal or ethical issues of concern.
- Firearms policy.
- Report preparation procedures. (Investigators should prepare or dictate their own reports. Reports written by office staff based on investigators’ notes may not be completely factual.)
- Office/evidence security. (Focus on office alarm system and procedures to protect and control access to videotape evidence.)
- Autos/vans used (Variety is important.)
- Supervision procedures and ratios. (Too few or too many supervisors is a red flag.)
- Veracity assurance systems. (Procedures should be in place to make sure reports are true and accurate.)
- Performance evaluations. (Should be ongoing and continuous.)
- Lawsuit history.
- Diversity of skills, cultures and backgrounds. (Also a clue to management skill level.)
- Billing and accounting systems. (Itemized invoices, protection against accepting duplicate payments and procedures to avoid billing errors.)
- Other work performed outside the insurance field. (Should be minimal or separate and non controversial.)
- Communication. (It should be easy and fast to speak directly with field investigators as well as office staff.)
These questions can be submitted in writing or they can be covered without notice during a meeting with the agency’s representatives. Either way, it is important to feel comfortable that the people the vendor sends out on cases, those upon whose word and work product key decisions will be based, are the kind of people the claims handler would select. Licensing and even good references do not necessarily guarantee that. Taking a few extra steps to prepare a limited, carefully screened vendor list will help ensure the best return for with as few hassles as possible.
Anthony Zammuto is President of CVI. He can be reached at (800) 486-2202.
© Copyright 1997 Alikim Media