Results & Insights
Insights gathered from thousands of insurance claims across roofing, restoration, mitigation, reconstruction, and commercial projects nationwide. Explore common recovery opportunities, trade-specific trends, and the claim patterns we see every day.
Industry intelligence
Recovery Results by Trade
Patterns consistently observed across the trades we review most — what carriers miss, where estimates fall short, and where recovery opportunity typically exists.
Roofing
Typical recovery range
25%–50%
Most common findings
- Missing accessories
- Underestimated waste
- Code compliance gaps
- Material pricing discrepancies
Areas reviewed
- Roofing estimates
- Code requirements
- Accessory scope
- Labor and material pricing
Representative opportunities
- Expanded approved scope
- Increased recovery values
- Stronger documentation packages
Water Mitigation
Typical recovery range
20%–45%
Most common findings
- Incomplete moisture documentation
- Under-scoped drying equipment
- Mitigation-to-rebuild disconnects
- Missing monitoring and containment
Areas reviewed
- Moisture mapping and dry logs
- Mitigation scope and equipment days
- Category and class considerations
- Rebuild scope alignment
Representative opportunities
- Stronger mitigation documentation
- Expanded drying and demo scope
- Clearer phase separation for carrier review
Fire Restoration
Typical recovery range
20%–40%
Most common findings
- Under-scoped smoke and odor treatment
- Missing structural and trade coordination
- Incomplete demolition and debris scope
- Contents and structure scope gaps
Areas reviewed
- Structural and multi-trade scopes
- Smoke sealing and deodorization
- Code and ordinance items
- Demolition, debris, and protection
Representative opportunities
- More complete rebuild scopes
- Better trade coordination documentation
- Stronger carrier-ready file organization
Mold Remediation
Typical recovery range
15%–35%
Most common findings
- Insufficient containment documentation
- Missing HEPA and antimicrobial scope
- Testing and clearance gaps
- Rebuild disconnect after remediation
Areas reviewed
- Containment and remediation protocols
- HEPA vacuuming and detail cleaning
- Moisture source documentation
- Clearance and rebuild alignment
Representative opportunities
- Dispute-ready remediation files
- Expanded protocol-driven scope
- Cleaner rebuild continuity
Reconstruction
Typical recovery range
20%–45%
Most common findings
- Interior finish scope gaps
- Multi-trade labor under-scoping
- Code upgrade omissions
- Matching and transition inconsistencies
Areas reviewed
- Drywall, flooring, and finish scopes
- Cabinet, trim, and paint transitions
- Electrical and mechanical rebuild items
- Code-required upgrades and permits
Representative opportunities
- More accurate rebuild estimates
- Expanded interior and finish scope
- Stronger documentation for carrier review
Contents Restoration
Typical recovery range
15%–35%
Most common findings
- Inventory and chain-of-custody gaps
- Under-documented specialty items
- Storage and handling omissions
- Cleaning method documentation deficiencies
Areas reviewed
- Inventory and pack-out operations
- Cleaning and restoration protocols
- Storage duration and warehouse logs
- Electronics and high-value item files
Representative opportunities
- More complete contents documentation
- Stronger pricing support for specialty items
- Organized carrier-ready submissions
Pattern recognition
What We Commonly Find
Recurring deficiency categories identified across thousands of reviewed claims — the issues carriers overlook and contractors leave uncaptured without systematic estimate review.
Scope Omissions
Line items and assemblies frequently absent from carrier estimates — often because field conditions, access requirements, or trade sequencing were not reflected in the initial scope.
- Missing accessory and trim line items
- Temporary repairs and protection
- Detach and reset operations
- Debris removal and disposal
- Interior scope gaps after mitigation
Code Compliance Gaps
Jurisdiction-specific upgrades and code-driven work that carriers omit when estimates are based on pre-loss conditions rather than current code requirements.
- Building code upgrades
- Ice and water barrier requirements
- Ventilation and exhaust requirements
- Safety and access regulations
- Permit-related costs
Pricing Discrepancies
Material, labor, and equipment rates that do not reflect market conditions, regional pricing, or the actual cost basis required to perform documented work.
- Material pricing below market
- Labor burden and productivity factors
- Market condition adjustments
- Regional pricing variations
- Equipment rate deficiencies
Documentation Opportunities
Files that lack the organized photos, logs, and supporting records needed to defend scope — creating recoverability gaps even when the work was performed correctly.
- Incomplete photo documentation
- Missing moisture or drying logs
- Weak cause-and-origin narratives
- Inconsistent estimate-to-field alignment
- Gaps in carrier correspondence records
O&P Eligibility
Overhead and profit considerations on multi-trade losses where contractor coordination, supervision, and general conditions justify review under carrier estimate standards.
- Multi-trade coordination scope
- Project supervision requirements
- General conditions on complex losses
- Phased billing and trade sequencing
- Contractor role documentation gaps
Coordination Costs
Labor, equipment, and administrative scope tied to project management, trade coordination, and the operational overhead of running complex insurance restoration work.
- Equipment reimbursement gaps
- Project supervision and GC scope
- Administrative and scheduling labor
- Protection and site management
- Trade mobilization and sequencing
Portfolio Recovery Review
Claims Ninja reviews active, closed, and underpaid claims across a contractor's operation to identify recurring estimate deficiencies, workflow issues, supplementing gaps, and recovery opportunities.
What we analyze
- Estimate quality
- Supplement frequency
- Recovery percentages
- Carrier trends
- Trade-specific deficiencies
- Revenue leakage opportunities
Proof points
Representative Recovery Examples
Concise benchmarks from reviewed claims — illustrative of recovery patterns, not the focus of this page.
Commercial Roofing Portfolio
- Carrier estimate
- $840,000
- Additional recovery identified
- $312,000
- Recovery increase
- 37%
Key findings
- Accessory and code item omissions across multiple roofs
- Material pricing below regional market rates
- Waste and steep charges under-scoped on complex geometry
Multi-Family Water Loss
- Carrier estimate
- $485,000
- Additional recovery identified
- $178,000
- Recovery increase
- 37%
Key findings
- Mitigation equipment days and monitoring under-scoped
- Rebuild scope disconnected from drying documentation
- O&P eligibility on multi-unit coordination scope
Fire Restoration Project
- Carrier estimate
- $620,000
- Additional recovery identified
- $198,000
- Recovery increase
- 32%
Key findings
- Smoke sealing and HVAC scope gaps
- Multi-trade labor under-scoped on structural rebuild
- Code upgrade items omitted from carrier estimate
Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to common questions about Results & Insights and recovery outcomes.
Results & Insights at /case-studies is Claims Ninja's industry intelligence hub — insights gathered from thousands of insurance claims across roofing, restoration, mitigation, reconstruction, and commercial projects. It covers recovery results by trade, common scope and pricing gaps we find, portfolio recovery reviews, and representative recovery benchmarks — not fabricated customer stories.
The recovery examples on Results & Insights are representative benchmarks drawn from aggregate claim review patterns — not fabricated customer stories with invented names or addresses. They illustrate typical recovery ranges and findings we see across reviewed files. Outcomes vary by claim type, documentation quality, carrier environment, and scope.
Recovery increases vary by trade, scope, and carrier environment. Across thousands of reviewed claims, contractors partnering with Claims Ninja have seen average recovery increases of approximately 40%. Trade-specific typical improvement ranges on Results & Insights include roofing at 25%–50%, water mitigation at 20%–45%, fire restoration at 20%–40%, mold remediation at 15%–35%, reconstruction at 20%–45%, and contents restoration at 15%–35%.
Roofing often shows the widest typical recovery improvement range at 25%–50%, driven by missing accessories, waste factors, code compliance gaps, and material pricing discrepancies. Water mitigation, fire restoration, and reconstruction commonly fall in the 20%–45% range. Mold remediation and contents restoration typically range from 15%–35%. The largest opportunity on any file depends on documentation quality, carrier scope gaps, and trade complexity — not trade alone.
A portfolio recovery review is a book-of-business analysis where Claims Ninja reviews active, closed, and underpaid claims across a contractor's operation. We evaluate estimate quality, supplement frequency, recovery percentages, carrier trends, trade-specific deficiencies, and revenue leakage opportunities. Contractors often discover systematic revenue left behind across dozens or hundreds of claims — not just one file.
Across thousands of reviewed claims, recurring deficiency categories include scope omissions (missing line items, accessory gaps, debris removal), code compliance gaps (ice and water barrier, ventilation, upgrades), pricing discrepancies (material and labor rates below market), documentation opportunities (incomplete photos, dry logs, weak narratives), O&P eligibility on multi-trade losses, and coordination costs (equipment reimbursement, supervision, general conditions).
Yes. Claims Ninja reviews commercial roofing, water, fire, mold, reconstruction, and contents portfolios — including multi-trade books with larger scopes and heavier documentation requirements. Portfolio-level review helps identify recurring estimate deficiencies, carrier-specific trends, and recovery opportunities that compound across a commercial book of business.
Yes. Claims Ninja conducts portfolio-level reviews of entire books of business — active, closed, and underpaid claims — to identify recurring scope gaps, supplement workflow issues, and aggregate recovery potential. Leadership gains visibility into patterns invisible when claims are evaluated one at a time, including revenue leakage across dozens or hundreds of files.
Ready when you are
Start with a free claim review
Tell us about your operation. We'll assess your claim workflow, identify recovery opportunities, and outline next steps.