Harbor View attended the 2026 International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU) Annual Conference in Orlando to hear how insurers, SIUs, and investigative firms are responding to a changing fraud landscape – and one question stuck with us: “What makes a great investigations firm valuable when technology can flag suspicious claims faster than ever?”
AI-altered documents and digital media are changing the evidence investigators encounter, while new tools make it easier to identify potential anomalies. But a flagged image is not a completed investigation. Someone still has to establish where the evidence came from, understand the people and relationships behind a claim, and determine what can be corroborated.
For investigative firms, that distinction matters. Technology can make the initial signal more accessible; experienced investigators turn it into a finding a carrier can evaluate and act on. The work may call for digital-forensics expertise, analysis across related claims, field investigation, and clear communication with SIU and claims teams. No single capability replaces the others.
Synthetic identities, altered documents, and manipulated images can make it harder to establish what happened in a claim. In Verisk’s 2026 survey, 99% of insurers said they had encountered manipulated or AI-altered documentation, and 66% believed digital media fraud goes undetected often or very often across the industry.
Insurers are adopting tools to respond: 65% of those surveyed reported using third-party automated, AI-based detection tools. But identifying a potentially altered submission is only the beginning. An investigator may still need the original file, an account of how it was obtained, an understanding of the parties involved, and corroborating records or fieldwork. An anomaly can prompt an inquiry; it does not, by itself, establish fraud.
As detection tools become more widely available, the ability to assess context, follow leads, and document defensible findings may become an even more important source of differentiation.
A single claim rarely tells the whole story. An application, a prior claim, a provider relationship, or an apparently unrelated party may change how an investigator interprets the initial evidence. Yet those pieces of information may sit with different teams, vendors, or carriers.
Better technology can help surface connections, but the workflow around it matters too. SIUs, claims teams, and outside investigators need a way to share relevant findings early, decide which leads warrant further work, and communicate conclusions clearly. The goal is not simply to generate more alerts. It is to direct investigative resources toward the questions most likely to change a claims decision.
For outside firms, that raises the bar. Carrier clients may increasingly value partners who can combine digital capabilities with field execution, specialist knowledge, and consistent reporting across cases and geographies. Just as important, they need investigators who know when the available evidence does not support a stronger conclusion.
Claims inflation and more sophisticated fraud schemes can create pressure to challenge questionable claims. But a higher-cost claim is not necessarily a fraudulent one, and suspicious conduct is not the same as a legally supportable denial.
In practice, a useful investigation starts with the decision the evidence must support. What specific conduct is at issue? Which records establish it? How are the parties connected? What additional investigation would resolve an important uncertainty? Thorough documentation and a clear chain from evidence to conclusion are valuable whether a matter is resolved within claims operations or proceeds to litigation.
Taken together, these shifts are changing not only how investigations are performed, but also what capabilities investigative firms need to remain valuable to carrier clients.
These demands create strategic choices for owners, not a single prescribed path. A firm may decide to deepen its digital-forensics capability, expand field coverage, invest in carrier-facing workflows, or build a specialty practice. The practical questions are: which capabilities clients increasingly expect from one partner, where the firm is differentiated today, and what it would take to expand coverage or expertise without diluting the judgment and service that built its reputation.
Some firms will make those investments independently. Others may find that a partnership or acquisition helps them add complementary expertise, reach new geographies, or support broader carrier relationships. Either path requires care: an investigator’s local knowledge, credibility, and client trust are not interchangeable pieces of a national footprint.
Our takeaway from IASIU: The strongest M&A strategy in insurance investigations is not simply to buy scale—it is to build a more capable partner for carriers.
A combination should connect complementary strengths in digital forensics, field execution, specialist expertise, and geographic coverage while preserving the judgment and client trust that made each firm valuable. For owners, the question is not consolidation for its own sake, but whether the right partnership can deliver more for clients than either firm could alone.
DISCLAIMER This presentation is intended for information and discussion purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional investment advice. Statements of fact and opinions expressed are those of the participants individually and, unless expressly stated to the contrary, are not the opinion or position of Harbor View Advisors, LLC (“HVA”). The information in this presentation was compiled from sources believed to be reliable for informational purposes only. HVA does not endorse or approve, and assumes no responsibility for the content, accuracy or completeness of the information presented.
