IT Forensics · Insurance
How can an insurance company verify whether the results of data recovery or restoration provided are consistent with the alleged loss?
Data recovery reports and recovered files can provide important insights into the extent of the damage and the feasibility of recovery.
Why this question is important for an insurance company
In disputed or financially significant claims, minor technical details can have a major impact on the assessment. This is precisely why a clear distinction must be drawn between an actual digital anomaly, its possible cause and a legal conclusion.
Technical investigative approach
We check the source medium, the backup path, the state of the file system, the recovered data, the logs and the traceable link to the affected device.
Where the limits of what can be said lie
A high or low recovery rate does not, in itself, prove either the cause or the time of the original damage.
Why LanCologne?
When carrying out a plausibility or tampering check, it is particularly important to adopt an unbiased approach. An unusual timestamp, a deleted file, an edited photograph or a gap in the log must not be interpreted as evidence of deception simply because the finding arises in a disputed insurance claim.
LanCologne therefore begins with a clear technical question of evidence. We first examine regular system processes, synchronisation, exports, backups, Updates, retention and other technical causes before an anomaly can be classified as a deliberate intervention. The decisive factor is not which explanation would be more favourable to the insurer or the policyholder, but which explanation is supported by the available data.
Key findings are validated against primary data where necessary. Screenshots, PDF reports, data exports and automated software displays are valuable tools, but are distinguished from the underlying data in terms of their informative value.
Similarly, the scope of the investigation remains limited to the specific purpose. A disputed claim does not grant an insurance company unlimited access to private communications, location histories or the full contents of a device. Only data that is lawfully available and necessary for the specific issue in question will be examined.
The report distinguishes between technical findings, interpretations and limitations of the conclusions. This enables the claims department to understand the key findings and allows another qualified IT forensic expert to verify the reasoning from a technical perspective.
How we work
No jumping to conclusions – even in the case of abnormal findings
Our task is not to confirm a suspicion. If a standard technical explanation is confirmed, it is documented. If a credible contradiction arises, this is also documented. If several explanations remain possible, the uncertainty is not replaced by a conjecture.
Transparent for the claims department and legal team – reproducible for forensic experts
The key message is formulated in a clear and understandable manner. The technical section includes the key data sources, time references, integrity information, artefact locations and validation steps. This ensures that the derivation remains verifiable for subsequent cross-checking.
LanCologne for independent technical plausibility checks
Where information, files, photographs, logs or other digital traces relating to an insurance claim require technical verification, LanCologne examines the specific technical issue in a non-prejudicial and transparent manner. The sole determining factor is what the lawfully available data actually demonstrates.
Legal framework
Section 31 of the German Insurance Contract Act (VVG) remains a key starting point for the assessment of claims: following the occurrence of an insured event, the insurer may request the information necessary to determine the insured event or the extent of its obligation to pay benefits; supporting documents may only be requested insofar as the policyholder can reasonably be expected to provide them. This does not imply a general right to a comprehensive forensic examination of all private data.
Section 28 of the Insurance Contract Act (VVG) governs the possible legal consequences of a breach of contractual obligations. Whether an obligation existed, whether it was breached, and what legal consequences ensue depend on the specific contract and the statutory requirements. A digital forensics report should therefore not conclude that there is no liability to perform, but should solely document the underlying technical facts.
With regard to personal data, particular attention must be paid to the principles set out in Article 5 of the GDPR – including purpose limitation and data minimisation – as well as to a legal basis in accordance with Article 6 of the GDPR. Data sources that are particularly intrusive must not be analysed comprehensively simply because they are technically available.
Should civil proceedings arise at a later date, it is for the court to assess the factual allegations. Section 286 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) governs the free assessment of evidence. Section 287 of the ZPO contains specific rules for determining the existence of damage and the extent thereof. The private expert report provides a technical factual basis for this, but does not replace the court’s assessment of the evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
LanCologne – IT Forensics for Insurance Companies
Do you have a digital enquiry? LanCologne can assist you with an objective, unbiased IT forensic investigation.
Related to this topic
- How can an insurance company have a claimed loss of business-critical data technically verified?
- How can one check whether corporate data thought to have been lost is still available elsewhere?
- How can one check whether an expensive data recovery operation was technically necessary?
- How can an insurance company determine, following a total loss, what digital evidence, if any, is still available?