Nashville Insurance Claim Investigations Documented activity, not adjuster suspicion.

Two to three days is the common starting scope for a workers compensation or bodily injury file, and that is a starting point rather than a rule. A single day proves very little — a claimant who stays home on Tuesday may have simply had a bad Tuesday. Patterns across several non-consecutive days are what demonstrate actual capacity. For disability files with a long tail, observation spread across weeks or revisited quarterly produces far better evidence than a concentrated block. We recommend scope against the file's exposure and tell you when fewer days would do.

That goes in the report exactly as clearly as an inconsistency would, and it is a useful outcome. A documented finding that a claimant's activity matches their reported restrictions closes a red flag properly, supports the adjuster's decision to continue paying, and reduces bad-faith exposure created by prolonging an investigation on a valid file. A substantial share of our assignments end this way. An investigator who only ever returns adverse findings is not investigating; they are confirming whatever the file already assumed.

No. Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-606 makes it a Class A misdemeanor to place a tracking device on a vehicle without the owner's consent, and a claimant is not a party who consents. Beyond the criminal exposure, a tracker taints the resulting evidence and can convert a claim dispute into a privacy suit against the carrier. If an investigator offers to track a claimant's vehicle, that offer is a reason to decline the vendor. Lawful location work is done through observation and public-record research instead.

Generally yes, where it was lawfully obtained and properly authenticated. The practical requirements are that the investigator can testify to what was recorded and under what conditions, that timestamps and metadata are intact, and that the footage has not been edited in a way that misrepresents the sequence. That is why we deliver the complete recording alongside any excerpt and keep a continuous log of the full observation period. Footage produced as a highlight reel with no surrounding context is where admissibility problems usually start.

The ones most often productive: reported restrictions inconsistent with what the claimant was observed doing at an IME or a recorded statement, indications of unreported employment or self-employment, an injury reported on a Monday with no witnesses, treatment patterns that do not track the reported severity, social media activity inconsistent with the file, or a claimant who is unreachable during business hours. A vague sense that something is off is worth an activity check rather than a multi-day block — the check tells you cheaply whether the block is warranted.

An activity check is a short, flat-rate look at whether a red flag has substance: a limited period of observation, address and vehicle confirmation, and a basic public-record sweep. It answers the threshold question of whether the claimant is visibly active and whether a fuller surveillance engagement is likely to produce anything. On modest-exposure files it is often the right and only step. On larger files it is a cost-controlled way to decide where to spend, rather than committing to three days on a hunch.

Publicly visible content, yes, and it frequently guides where field hours should go — a public post about a weekend event tells us which day to observe. What we do not do is send connection requests under a false identity, use a pretext account to access restricted content, or attempt to reach anything behind a privacy setting. Those methods create admissibility problems and potential liability that outweigh any evidence they produce. Public content is captured with the date and source recorded so it can be authenticated later.

For a standard assignment in Middle Tennessee, typically within two to three business days, which allows time for pre-surveillance research so field hours are not spent confirming an address. For urgent assignments — an IME the following morning, a claimant about to relocate, a deposition date — we schedule same or next day where an investigator is available, and we will tell you candidly if starting without research will cost you more hours than waiting a day would.

Yes, and both are a regular part of the work. For TPAs managing multiple accounts, we can standardize the report format, turnaround commitment and billing structure across assignments so that files look consistent regardless of which account they came from. For self-insured employers, we handle individual assignments without any requirement to commit to volume, which is usually the right fit when comp exposure is occasional rather than continuous.

Yes. Investigator testimony typically covers where observation was conducted from, what conditions were present, how video was recorded and stored, and what the activity log reflects. Because testimony is anticipated, we document to that standard from the first hour: intact metadata, contemporaneous notes, recorded vantage points, and a full log rather than a curated one. Knowing an investigator may be cross-examined is also the strongest guarantee that the fieldwork was done properly.

Surveillance is billed hourly at an agreed rate with portal-to-portal time disclosed up front; activity checks and single-day sweeps are flat-rate. The variables that move cost are the number of observation days, travel distance from Nashville, whether the address and vehicle are already confirmed, and whether rush or weekend scheduling is required. We scope against exposure and will say so when an assignment would cost more than the claim justifies. Volume arrangements are available for carriers and TPAs assigning regularly.

We handle the investigative side of property and theft claims: documenting the loss scene, locating and interviewing witnesses, verifying ownership and purchase history through records, researching prior claims where lawfully accessible, and tracing items where a resale trail exists. What we do not do is render a cause-and-origin opinion, which is the province of a licensed fire investigator or a qualified engineer. Where a file needs that, we will say so and work alongside the expert rather than substituting for one.

Where counsel is involved, we take direction from counsel and sequence the work to the discovery schedule — surveillance timed ahead of a deposition is worth considerably more than the same surveillance obtained afterward, because it can be used to test testimony rather than merely contradict it. We deliver in whatever format counsel needs for exhibits, and we coordinate on what gets disclosed and when, which is counsel's decision rather than ours.