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 Cases Were Handled Separately
The four cases in the same area were handled separately — and it does not appear from the reports that the connection between the cases was investigated or assessed.
Whether the division stems from an instruction or a practice, I cannot document. But the consequence is that each case appears smaller than it is when the connection is viewed as a whole.
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 god skik rules (Bekendtgørelse nr. 1557 af 6. december 2024 § 4) — require the insurer to act honestly and fairly towards its customers. Splitting physically connected damages and handling them in isolation is, in my assessment, not consistent with loyal treatment.