Assessor's Mandate Changed After the Inspection
10/10Mandate Changed After Inspection (EN)
What Happened
In Case 4 (asbestos), the assessor's mandate appears from Gjensidige's own case system: the original brief was an "inspection" of the conditions. The assessor conducted the inspection in accordance with this brief.
16 days AFTER the inspection, Gjensidige changed the mandate from "inspection" to "asbestos mapping."
Why It Is Severe (10/10)
An assessor's mandate is the foundation of the entire report. It defines: - What the assessor must investigate - Which methods are used - Which conclusions can be drawn - What the report can be used for
When the mandate is changed retroactively — AFTER the work is completed — the report's basis is altered backward. An "inspection" has one scope. "Asbestos mapping" has an entirely different one. By changing the mandate after the fact, the report can now be used to support conclusions it was never designed to reach.
The Chain of Consequences
- The assessor inspected under one mandate ("inspection") → he examined conditions generally
- The mandate was changed to "asbestos mapping" → the report is now used as evidence that there is NO asbestos
- Gjensidige cites the report as proof that the asbestos problem is superficial → but the report was never designed to assess asbestos extent
- The Claimant is rejected based on a report whose mandate was changed after it was written
Analogy
Imagine a doctor was asked to perform a general health check. Afterward, the hospital changes the record to say the doctor performed a specific cancer screening. The general check is now used as proof the patient is cancer-free — even though the doctor never looked for cancer.
That is, in my assessment, what the change of the assessor's brief in this case amounts to.
Legal Assessment
The Danish Contracts Act § 33 may, depending on the circumstances, mean that a statement cannot be relied upon where this would be contrary to common decency (almindelig hæderlighed). Changing a brief after the inspection and then using the report as if it had been commissioned for that purpose is, in my assessment, contrary to reasonable expectations of good faith.
Good insurance practice requires the insurer to handle cases on a transparent and fair basis. Changing the mandate afterwards — and then using the report as the basis for the rejection — is, in my assessment, the opposite.
The Evidence
The mandate change is documented in Gjensidige's own case system. The timestamps show: - Inspection completed under mandate "inspection" - Mandate changed to "asbestos mapping": registered 16 days after the inspection
The chronology follows from Gjensidige's own case system. In my assessment, it is a serious problem that the basis of the report was changed after the inspection.