Independent Testing Laboratories in Property Claims

Browse the full Resources Index

Some questions that arise during a property claim cannot be answered through visual inspection alone and require material analysis performed under controlled laboratory conditions. Independent testing laboratories, often accredited to standards maintained by organizations such as ASTM International, provide this kind of analysis, examining physical samples of roofing material, siding, sealants, or other building components to answer specific technical questions that a field inspection can raise but not always resolve.

A common category of laboratory work involves distinguishing between manufacturing defects and damage caused by an external event such as hail or wind. A shingle that has failed prematurely might show characteristics consistent with inadequate asphalt saturation, insufficient granule adhesion from the manufacturing process, or a defect in the fiberglass mat, all of which can sometimes be identified through microscopic examination, controlled flex and impact testing, or chemical analysis of the asphalt itself, depending on which characteristic is in question and what the laboratory’s equipment allows it to measure. Distinguishing these conditions from storm-related fracture patterns requires expertise and equipment beyond what a field inspection typically provides, and laboratories specializing in forensic materials analysis, including firms with backgrounds in roofing science and building envelope forensics, are often engaged for this purpose. The distinction matters because a manufacturing defect and storm damage can sometimes produce superficially similar visual symptoms, such as cracking or granule loss, even though their underlying causes and appropriate remedies differ considerably.

Laboratory testing generally follows a defined protocol appropriate to the material and the question being asked, referencing applicable ASTM test methods where they exist, and produces a written report describing the methodology used, the findings observed, and the laboratory’s conclusions within the scope of what was tested. Because these reports carry weight in a dispute, the chain of custody for samples submitted for testing, discussed in related documentation practice, matters considerably in establishing confidence in the results. A well-documented report typically includes photographs of the sample as received, a description of the testing equipment and conditions used, and enough procedural detail that another qualified laboratory could, in principle, repeat the analysis and compare results.

Cost and turnaround time are practical considerations that affect how often laboratory testing is used relative to field-based methods. A full forensic material analysis can take weeks and involves fees that may not be proportionate to a smaller claim, which is one reason it tends to be reserved for situations involving significant disputed value, allegations of manufacturing defect affecting multiple properties, or cases where field testing methods have not produced a clear answer, leaving a material question that only laboratory analysis can reasonably settle. When laboratory testing is used, it typically supplements rather than replaces the physical inspection and documentation already performed on site.

A laboratory report provides technical findings about the material tested, within the bounds of the specific methodology applied. It does not itself determine coverage, causation in a legal sense, or how a claim should ultimately be resolved, all of which remain matters for the policy and the parties to address using the report as one piece of the overall evidence.

This article is provided as general education on the appraisal process. It is not legal advice, and procedures vary by state and by policy.

Based in Minnesota and serving clients nationwide, Russ Lis is a working property insurance appraiser and umpire. Contact Appraisal Resolution.