Careers

A retailer of high-end eye wear experienced flood damage. The store was closed for a few weeks and subsequently moved to a new building located approximately 4 miles away. The company claimed the move confused customers and asserted a claim for business income loss exceeding $1 million. The claim was largely based on a sales growth comparison between the subject store and the company’s other stores located within a 10 mile radius.

We determined that the claimed sales growth was not related to an increase in demand. Instead, the apparent sales increase was due to a consolidation of stores. Several neighboring locations were closed and customers from those locations migrated to the next closest store. Therefore, we determined that claimed sales growth at the subject location was not appropriate. In fact, we determined that sales were expected to decline due to an increase in the number of vision correction surgeries performed in the area. We calculated a combined business income and extra expense loss of around $150,000, which became the basis for the settlement of the matter.

A manufacturing company was closed for several months as a result of a fire. The company submitted a business income loss claim of over $500,000.

We were hired by the company’s insurance carrier to evaluate the accuracy of the claim. We reviewed the company’s manufacturing cost records and found a mathematical error in the claim and the accounting system pertaining to an allocation of overhead costs and a complex raw material conversion formula. The error caused a nearly 15% understatement of the claim. The accurate settlement of the claim is only part of the story. In addition, the company used our findings to revamp their cost accounting procedures.

A paint supply company suffered a fire at its main distribution warehouse and claimed an inventory loss of over $800,000. The majority of the damaged inventory was burnt out-of-sight, so the claim could not be corroborated by examining the damaged inventory.

To verify the reasonableness of the claimed loss, we reviewed historical inventory count sheets, purchase invoices, sales reports. Based on analysis of such records, we determined that the claimed inventory quantities appeared reasonable. However, we noted that a portion of the claimed inventory was greater than 3 years old and was considered obsolete. The obsolete items were excluded from the settlement of the claim.

A cake manufacturer received a batch of contaminated eggs from its supplier. The eggs were used in production before the contamination was discovered. As a result, the manufacturer discarded several days of production. The manufacturer claimed a loss of inventory and additional expenses associated with identifying and segregating the contaminated production.

We reviewed production, inventory and sales documents and determined that some of the cakes that were destroyed were already expired. Also, we noted that some of the expenses that were claimed would have been incurred regardless of the product contamination. Based on our findings, we excluded some of the claimed inventory and expenses from our calculation and the matter was settled at the amount we calculated.

A retailer of high-end eye wear experienced flood damage. The store was closed for a few weeks and subsequently moved to a new building located approximately 4 miles away. The company claimed the move confused customers and asserted a claim for business income loss exceeding $1 million. The claim was largely based on a sales growth comparison between the subject store and the company’s other stores located within a 10 mile radius.

We determined that the claimed sales growth was not related to an increase in demand. Instead, the apparent sales increase was due to a consolidation of stores. Several neighboring locations were closed and customers from those locations migrated to the next closest store. Therefore, we determined that claimed sales growth at the subject location was not appropriate. In fact, we determined that sales were expected to decline due to an increase in the number of vision correction surgeries performed in the area. We calculated a combined business income and extra expense loss of around $150,000, which became the basis for the settlement of the matter.

A manufacturing company was closed for several months as a result of a fire. The company submitted a business income loss claim of over $500,000.

We were hired by the company’s insurance carrier to evaluate the accuracy of the claim. We reviewed the company’s manufacturing cost records and found a mathematical error in the claim and the accounting system pertaining to an allocation of overhead costs and a complex raw material conversion formula. The error caused a nearly 15% understatement of the claim. The accurate settlement of the claim is only part of the story. In addition, the company used our findings to revamp their cost accounting procedures.

A paint supply company suffered a fire at its main distribution warehouse and claimed an inventory loss of over $800,000. The majority of the damaged inventory was burnt out-of-sight, so the claim could not be corroborated by examining the damaged inventory.

To verify the reasonableness of the claimed loss, we reviewed historical inventory count sheets, purchase invoices, sales reports. Based on analysis of such records, we determined that the claimed inventory quantities appeared reasonable. However, we noted that a portion of the claimed inventory was greater than 3 years old and was considered obsolete. The obsolete items were excluded from the settlement of the claim.

A cake manufacturer received a batch of contaminated eggs from its supplier. The eggs were used in production before the contamination was discovered. As a result, the manufacturer discarded several days of production. The manufacturer claimed a loss of inventory and additional expenses associated with identifying and segregating the contaminated production.

We reviewed production, inventory and sales documents and determined that some of the cakes that were destroyed were already expired. Also, we noted that some of the expenses that were claimed would have been incurred regardless of the product contamination. Based on our findings, we excluded some of the claimed inventory and expenses from our calculation and the matter was settled at the amount we calculated.

A retailer of high-end eye wear experienced flood damage. The store was closed for a few weeks and subsequently moved to a new building located approximately 4 miles away. The company claimed the move confused customers and asserted a claim for business income loss exceeding $1 million. The claim was largely based on a sales growth comparison between the subject store and the company’s other stores located within a 10 mile radius.

We determined that the claimed sales growth was not related to an increase in demand. Instead, the apparent sales increase was due to a consolidation of stores. Several neighboring locations were closed and customers from those locations migrated to the next closest store. Therefore, we determined that claimed sales growth at the subject location was not appropriate. In fact, we determined that sales were expected to decline due to an increase in the number of vision correction surgeries performed in the area. We calculated a combined business income and extra expense loss of around $150,000, which became the basis for the settlement of the matter.

A manufacturing company was closed for several months as a result of a fire. The company submitted a business income loss claim of over $500,000.

We were hired by the company’s insurance carrier to evaluate the accuracy of the claim. We reviewed the company’s manufacturing cost records and found a mathematical error in the claim and the accounting system pertaining to an allocation of overhead costs and a complex raw material conversion formula. The error caused a nearly 15% understatement of the claim. The accurate settlement of the claim is only part of the story. In addition, the company used our findings to revamp their cost accounting procedures.

A paint supply company suffered a fire at its main distribution warehouse and claimed an inventory loss of over $800,000. The majority of the damaged inventory was burnt out-of-sight, so the claim could not be corroborated by examining the damaged inventory.

To verify the reasonableness of the claimed loss, we reviewed historical inventory count sheets, purchase invoices, sales reports. Based on analysis of such records, we determined that the claimed inventory quantities appeared reasonable. However, we noted that a portion of the claimed inventory was greater than 3 years old and was considered obsolete. The obsolete items were excluded from the settlement of the claim.

A cake manufacturer received a batch of contaminated eggs from its supplier. The eggs were used in production before the contamination was discovered. As a result, the manufacturer discarded several days of production. The manufacturer claimed a loss of inventory and additional expenses associated with identifying and segregating the contaminated production.

We reviewed production, inventory and sales documents and determined that some of the cakes that were destroyed were already expired. Also, we noted that some of the expenses that were claimed would have been incurred regardless of the product contamination. Based on our findings, we excluded some of the claimed inventory and expenses from our calculation and the matter was settled at the amount we calculated.

A retailer of high-end eye wear experienced flood damage. The store was closed for a few weeks and subsequently moved to a new building located approximately 4 miles away. The company claimed the move confused customers and asserted a claim for business income loss exceeding $1 million. The claim was largely based on a sales growth comparison between the subject store and the company’s other stores located within a 10 mile radius.

We determined that the claimed sales growth was not related to an increase in demand. Instead, the apparent sales increase was due to a consolidation of stores. Several neighboring locations were closed and customers from those locations migrated to the next closest store. Therefore, we determined that claimed sales growth at the subject location was not appropriate. In fact, we determined that sales were expected to decline due to an increase in the number of vision correction surgeries performed in the area. We calculated a combined business income and extra expense loss of around $150,000, which became the basis for the settlement of the matter.

A manufacturing company was closed for several months as a result of a fire. The company submitted a business income loss claim of over $500,000.

We were hired by the company’s insurance carrier to evaluate the accuracy of the claim. We reviewed the company’s manufacturing cost records and found a mathematical error in the claim and the accounting system pertaining to an allocation of overhead costs and a complex raw material conversion formula. The error caused a nearly 15% understatement of the claim. The accurate settlement of the claim is only part of the story. In addition, the company used our findings to revamp their cost accounting procedures.

A paint supply company suffered a fire at its main distribution warehouse and claimed an inventory loss of over $800,000. The majority of the damaged inventory was burnt out-of-sight, so the claim could not be corroborated by examining the damaged inventory.

To verify the reasonableness of the claimed loss, we reviewed historical inventory count sheets, purchase invoices, sales reports. Based on analysis of such records, we determined that the claimed inventory quantities appeared reasonable. However, we noted that a portion of the claimed inventory was greater than 3 years old and was considered obsolete. The obsolete items were excluded from the settlement of the claim.

A cake manufacturer received a batch of contaminated eggs from its supplier. The eggs were used in production before the contamination was discovered. As a result, the manufacturer discarded several days of production. The manufacturer claimed a loss of inventory and additional expenses associated with identifying and segregating the contaminated production.

We reviewed production, inventory and sales documents and determined that some of the cakes that were destroyed were already expired. Also, we noted that some of the expenses that were claimed would have been incurred regardless of the product contamination. Based on our findings, we excluded some of the claimed inventory and expenses from our calculation and the matter was settled at the amount we calculated.