Cross-Case Fragmentation: Same Damage, Four Separate Cases
9/10Cross-Case Fragmentation (EN)
What Is Fragmentation?
Fragmentation is a technique where an insurer splits physically connected damages into separate cases — then treats each case in isolation, as if they are independent. By ignoring the physical connection, each case is reduced to a seemingly smaller problem that is easier to reject.
Four Cases in the Same 2×3 Meter Area
All four cases concern damage in precisely the same 2×3 meter area at the building's foundation:
| Case | Damage Type | Status | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case 3 | Massive foundation cracks | Court case | Not quantified |
| Case 4 | Asbestos in the soil | Board (awaiting) | 0 DKK paid |
| Case 5 | Basement floor buckling | Board (complaint filed) | 0 of 13,560 DKK |
| Case 6 | Sewer break and rats | Rejected | 0 of 245,000 DKK |
Physically, these four cases are one connected damage complex. The foundation cracks (Case 3) are connected to soil movement affecting the basement floor (Case 5). The sewer break (Case 6) contributes to soil displacement. The asbestos tiles (Case 4) were found at the same foundation during excavation.
The Same Assessor — Instructed to Ignore the Connection
Gjensidige used the same assessor (Sedgwick) for all four cases. The assessor was on the property, inspected the same area repeatedly — but was instructed NOT to investigate or report on the cross-case connections.
This is not coincidence. When the same professional sees the same damages from four different angles and still does not comment on the connection, it is because they have been instructed to keep the cases separate.
Why Fragmentation Works
Fragmentation is effective because it:
- Reduces each case's scope: Each case appears as a smaller problem
- Prevents the full picture: When boards or courts see only one case at a time, they miss the overall pattern
- Multiplies the consumer's burden: The Claimant must document, argue, and complain in four separate cases — with four separate deadlines, four separate appendices, and four separate processes
- Shields the insurer from the full picture: If all four cases were handled together, the scope and severity would be obvious
The Consequence in Numbers
- 4 separate cases created for damages in one physical area
- 1 assessor used for all four — without investigating the connection
- 258,560+ DKK in total claims — 0 DKK paid on the three rejected cases
- 4 separate complaint processes required of the consumer
What Good Insurance Practice Requires
Good insurance practice and the Danish Insurance Contracts Act § 1 require the insurer to handle cases loyally toward the insured. Deliberately splitting physically connected damages to handle them in isolation is the opposite of loyal treatment — it is strategic fragmentation designed to reduce the insurer's exposure.