An Open Letter to the Property & Casualty & Restoration Industry on Alignment, Friction, and the Need for a Shared Path Forward

The future of this industry will not be defined by how efficiently each party operates in isolation, but by how effectively we align the system we all operate within.

An Open Letter to the Property & Casualty & Restoration Industry

On Alignment, Friction, and the Need for a Shared Path Forward

By Chad E. Fuller, Founder & Principal, Build | Intel

Across the restoration, construction, and property and casualty ecosystem, a consistent narrative has emerged over the past several years: fewer claims, tighter margins, slower payments, and increasing operational pressure.

The data confirms it. Claim volume declined materially in 2025, while payment timelines extended and margin compression intensified. What once operated with a natural buffer—driven by volume and catastrophe cycles—now operates under constraint.

However, the most critical observation is not what has changed.

It is what has been exposed.

The current environment has revealed that many of the challenges facing the industry are not isolated to one participant group. They are systemic in nature—rooted in misalignment between contractors, carriers, consultants, administrators, and policyholders.

Payment delays are not solely a carrier issue.
Documentation inconsistency is not solely a contractor issue.
Oversight structures are not solely a TPA issue.

They are the result of a system in which each party operates with different objectives, different incentives, and different definitions of completeness.

In that environment, friction is not an anomaly.
It is inevitable.

The Observed Breakdown

Three primary areas of misalignment are increasingly evident:

1. Financial Threshold vs. Project Reality

Rising deductibles and evolving coverage structures have created a growing disconnect between financial eligibility and actual construction activity.

In many cases, reconstruction begins before it is fully understood whether the loss exceeds the applicable deductible. Once work is underway, the question shifts from “Is this a covered loss?” to “How do we reconcile this work within a system that may not support it?”

This introduces immediate strain across all parties.

2. Documentation Timing and Intent

Documentation quality remains one of the most consistent differentiators in payment speed and dispute avoidance.

Yet, in practice, documentation is frequently:

• Reactive rather than proactive

• Incomplete relative to evolving scope

• Disconnected from pricing and sequencing

This creates downstream inefficiencies that cannot be resolved at the point of billing.

3. Expansion of Oversight Structures

The increased reliance on TPAs and structured program work is often framed as a cause of friction.

In reality, it is better understood as a response to variability.

When scope development, documentation, and execution vary significantly across projects, oversight becomes necessary to restore predictability.

This dynamic is not unique to this industry. It is consistent with any system experiencing inconsistency at scale.

A Critical Question

If these issues are systemic, the appropriate question is not:

“Who is responsible?”

The appropriate question is:

“Where does alignment actually occur?”

At present, the answer is largely informal.

Individual companies adjust internally.
Individual claims are negotiated.
Individual disputes are resolved.

But there is no structured forum in which:

• Contractors

• Mitigation professionals

• Consultants

• Carriers

• TPAs

• Claims professionals

…regularly engage one another around shared operational realities.

Does This Exist Today?

Elements of this type of collaboration do exist within the industry—through associations, conferences, and task forces.

However, these efforts are typically:

• Informational rather than operational

• Episodic rather than continuous

• Broad in focus rather than targeted at root‑cause resolution

What does not appear to exist is a standing, cross‑disciplinary working group specifically tasked with identifying and addressing systemic inefficiencies at the operational level.

A Proposed Path Forward

The industry would benefit from the establishment of a Property & Casualty Operational Advisory Council, structured around the following principles:

1. Representation Across Stakeholders

Participation should include:

• Independent contractors and restoration firms

• Carrier representatives

• TPA leadership

• Construction and forensic consultants

• Claims professionals

No single perspective should dominate.

2. Quarterly Engagement

Meetings conducted on a consistent quarterly basis, focused on:

• Current friction points

• Data‑driven observations

• Measurable operational impacts

3. Defined Agenda and Action Items

Each meeting should produce:

• Identified root causes

• Agreed‑upon pilot initiatives

• Assigned responsibility for follow‑through

4. Measurable Outcomes

Success should be evaluated through:

• Reduction in payment timelines

• Improved documentation consistency

• Decreased need for supplementary scope adjustments

• Increased alignment between field conditions and estimate development

5. Communication Beyond the Room

Where necessary, findings should be:

• Shared with broader industry groups

• Communicated to policymakers

• Used to inform future standards and practices

Why This Matters Now

The industry is entering a phase in which:

• Volume can no longer offset inefficiency

• Technology is increasing visibility but not necessarily alignment

• Financial and operational pressure is being felt across all participants

Without intentional coordination, these pressures will continue to manifest as:

• Delayed payments

• Increased administrative burden

• Greater reliance on oversight

• Erosion of trust between stakeholders

The alternative is not theoretical.

Other industries have demonstrated that structured, recurring collaboration between practitioners and policy‑level participants leads to meaningful operational improvements.

Gaining Momentum

The question is not whether such a group is feasible.

The question is how quickly it can be initiated.

Initial steps may include:

• Identifying a small, representative founding group

• Defining a narrow initial focus (e.g., documentation standards or pre‑construction claim validation)

• Establishing a first meeting with clear objectives and outcomes

• Expanding participation gradually as structure and credibility develop

Speed matters.

Because every cycle that passes without alignment reinforces the existing inefficiencies.

Closing Statement

The challenges currently facing this industry are not the result of a lack of capability, effort, or commitment from any one group.

They are the result of a system that has evolved without sufficient synchronization between its participants.

That can be corrected.

But not individually.

Only collectively.

The future of this industry will not be defined by how efficiently each party operates in isolation, but by how effectively we align the system we all operate within.