Expert in the spotlight: Leo Kramer
A look behind the scenes at a Technical Damage Expert
In this article, we highlight one of our experts from DEKRA Claims & Expertise: who is he, what exactly does he do, what challenges does he face, and what drives him? This gives you a glimpse behind the scenes and shows you how broad our field of work is and how deep our expertise goes. Today we speak to Leo Kramer, Technical Damage Expert specializing in ATV (Liability and Technical Insurances).
What motivated you to become a damage expert, and what still makes it fascinating after all these years?
“I was an underwriter at the Amsterdam insurance exchange and regularly came into contact with damage experts — including Wim ter Voert (a former colleague). Wim also knew me socially. He asked whether I was interested in the profession of damage expert. It seemed a fascinating field to me, so I entered it — first as a fire expert, then as a risk assessor, and for many years now as an ATV-expert.
What I find compelling in this job is doing investigations. Especially in liability cases, investigation is extremely important — and often reveals that things are completely different from what was assumed or stated beforehand. That process of uncovering the truth, and thereby safeguarding the interests of our clients and the insured, makes the work so fascinating.”
What is the most striking or remarkable claim you have ever handled — and how did it turn out?
“There are too many to mention. I’ve handled many interesting cases, for example ones where certain fire causes had been assumed — often supported by reports from fire investigators. After investigation, it would turn out that the causes asserted by those investigators were not the real causes or could not be proven, and an insured had been held liable unjustly.
More recently, an insured party and a counterparty were accused of fraud because the declared cause of a fire was considered impossible according to several fire investigators. After extensive investigation, it turned out that the declared cause was indeed plausible — and, in all likelihood, correct. The persons involved were rehabilitated after three years.
In another noteworthy case, an entrepreneur was being held liable because his grinding work was thought to have caused a major fire. Multiple fire investigators, influenced by bias, had pointed to the grinding work as the cause. However, investigation showed that the cause lay elsewhere — outside of the entrepreneur’s liability.
Technical investigations into failures of structures, installations, or consumer products that resulted in injuries sometimes also lead to surprising conclusions.
But also cases where liability could lie very differently based on contractual documentation — those are fascinating to investigate.”
How do you maintain objectivity in situations where parties disagree about the cause or extent of damage?
“By sticking to the facts. Do the submitted facts add up — or are there other possibilities? What is possible and what cannot be proven? Is there a case of tunnel vision among the parties involved?”
What gives you the greatest satisfaction in your work?
“What I find most rewarding are cases where almost everyone, from the outset, expects certain conclusions or alleged facts. And then, after often extensive investigation, it turns out that those conclusions were incorrect or at least cannot be drawn.”
How do you stay sharp and up-to-date in a profession that is constantly evolving?
“You stay sharp by never assuming that someone else is right — always rely on your own investigation, sometimes (really quite often) against the current. Check everything that is asserted. Can statements be supported by facts, or are there gaps? And if there are gaps: what do those gaps mean for your conclusions?
Also, scrutinizing your own conclusions is important. Look at a matter from another perspective too — and ask yourself whether your own view isn’t tunnel vision. Be aware that tunnel vision can happen to anyone. If you initially drew wrong conclusions, don’t entrench yourself — don’t be afraid to revise your conclusions.
Attending seminars, reading professional literature — and consulting specialist technical information when relevant — are very important. Outsourcing specific technical investigations can also be essential. Nobody knows everything. What’s great about working within the DEKRA organization is that other DEKRA companies have their own research laboratories, for example in materials science, electrical engineering, automotive and motorcycle technology. This is one of the reasons DEKRA distinguishes itself from its competitors in the market. We are much more than just an expertise organization.”