Retroactive Mandate Manipulation: Changing the Assessor's Brief After Inspection
10/10Retroactive Mandate Manipulation (EN)
What Happened
In Case 4 (asbestos), Gjensidige sent the assessor firm Sedgwick to the property. The original mandate — the brief the assessor worked under — was an "inspection" of the conditions. The assessor conducted the inspection in accordance with this mandate.
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 precisely what Gjensidige did with the assessor mandate.
Legal Assessment
The Danish Contracts Act § 33 protects against actions contrary to honest conduct. Changing a mandate retroactively to alter a report's conclusions is an act contrary to any reasonable expectation of good faith.
Good insurance practice requires the insurer to handle cases on a transparent and fair basis. Retroactive manipulation of the documentary foundation is the direct 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
This chronology is indisputable. Gjensidige's own data reveals the manipulation.