What Surveillance Investigators Wish SIU Managers Understood

Every SIU manager has a stack of claims that need eyes on them, a budget to justify, and a supervisor asking why the numbers aren't moving faster. We get it. But there's a gap between how surveillance gets requested and how surveillance actually works, and closing that gap is usually the difference between a video that holds up and a wasted day of billing.

Here's what investigators in the field wish Case Managers understood.

We only know what's in the case file

An investigator doesn't know the claimant, doesn't know the injury, and doesn't know the history. Unless it is sent to us. The richer the file, the sharper the surveillance. Prior statements, social media flags, known vehicles, work schedule, anything. Case in point: At one point during a routine surveillance, the claimant's wife exited the residence and began doing yard work. As she was not the subject of our surveillance, I noted it in the report, but did not obtain video. An irate Case Manager asked me why we didn't get footage of the "Co-claimant" doing the yard work. Apparently, both the husband and wife had filed a claim, but the wife's claim was under a different file, and was not provided to us. An understandable oversight, but a wasteful one.

A tight activity window works against you

We understand the instinct to specify "surveillance between 6 AM and 2 PM" to keep things predictable, but claimants don't perform their injuries on a schedule. If someone's most active hours are later in the day, a rigid window guarantees we miss it. Give us flexibility on timing, even if it means fewer total hours, and the odds of usable footage go up. Case in point: Got a rush file on a Claimant. Basic social media uncovered that she was working somewhere as an exotic dancer. Unfortunately, the client's rule was strict: we could only deviate if we knew when and where the claimant would be. Since we didn't know the 'where' yet, we had to waste a day starting in the early morning before we were allowed to change our window to catch the Claimant going to work.

Video isn't a coin flip, but it isn't a guarantee either

Surveillance has a maximum success rate, and it's not 100%. Weather, claimant behavior, traffic, a car that simply never leaves the garage - any of these can mean a day with no footage, that's the nature of the work. What separates a good surveillance investigator from a bad one is hard work and intelligent adjustment: extending or shifting hours after a slow day, spot checking other addresses, good pretexting - working the file, not just running the clock. If your investigator comes back with no video and no effort, that's worth a conversation. If they come back with no video and a clear account of what was tried, that's just the nature of surveillance. There is nothing more frustrating about this job than being judged for things outside of your control.

Tell us what ultimately helped

Feedback loops in this industry tend to run in one direction — SIU tells the investigator what they need, and the file closes. Investigators rarely hear whether the footage actually moved the claim, got the case settled, or held up when the defense attorney reviewed it. That feedback matters. It tells us what "useful" looks like from your side, and it sharpens how the next case gets worked. A short note — "this held up," "this wasn't specific enough," "this was unclear" — costs little and makes the next referral better.

Rushed authorization often costs more than it saves

Surveillance approved and green-lit the same day sounds efficient, but often results in incomplete information being shared and not enough time for the surveillance investigator to get clarification. Case in point: Rush case assigned Friday night for Saturday morning. While reviewing the file, I noticed that the requested address was not found in any of the locates or reports, and was not the address that the claimant was previously observed living at. I attempted to contact the Case Manager, but it was already late on a Friday evening. Without knowing whether there was a reason why this specific address and these specific dates were requested, I had little choice but to head there and wait for a response from the Case Manager. One wasted day of surveillance later, I got a reply - a completely unrelated address was erroneously requested. If this hadn't been a rush case, we could have caught that beforehand.

The bottom line

Surveillance works best as a partnership, not a transaction. The more context, flexibility, and feedback SIU provides, the more the investigator can actually deliver what the claim needs — not just billable hours from the driver's seat.

Alias Investigations is a licensed private investigations agency based in Eugene, Oregon, specializing in insurance fraud investigation and surveillance. OR PI License #118713.