What happens now — and why composure matters most
A suspicion of arson changes everything. You are not just the victim of a fire — you are handed a suspicion that affects your settlement, your policy and, in serious cases, your liberty. For most people it is a situation in which emotion and legal reality collide head-on.
Our work begins with composure. Sitting down with you, putting the file on the table, ordering what is factually established, and determining which steps now take priority. That is not a formality — from experience we know that ill-considered actions in the first days can needlessly break a great deal.
Two tracks that run in parallel
The civil track (the insurer)
This concerns your policy. To refuse to pay out or to invoke fraud, the insurer must demonstrate that there has been intent. The civil burden of proof is lower than in criminal law, but real all the same: a suspicion alone is not enough, suspicions must be substantiated by technical investigation and evidence. On this track we work as counter-expert: we assess the insurer’s report, carry out our own technical investigation and conduct the substantive dialogue with the insurer.
The criminal track (police and Public Prosecution Service)
Have the police questioned you as a suspect, or is there a criminal investigation under way? Then a criminal defence lawyer is needed — that is not a role we fill. We do, however, often work in parallel with that lawyer, because the technical fire investigation bears on both tracks. A strong independent investigation is useful in both the civil and the criminal track.
How we refute unjust suspicions
Methodical dissection of the insurer’s report
Many accusations rest on a report in which the conclusion “probably arson” is drawn on the basis of indicators that turn out, on closer examination, not to stand up. Classic examples: multiple seats of fire that in reality have a single progression, marks on the floor that are interpreted as accelerant but could equally have arisen from melting plastic, or burn patterns on door frames which, according to current NFPA understanding, are not an indicator of intentional acts.
We test each of these indicators against the current scientific literature and against NFPA 921. Where an indicator does not hold up, the substantiation of the report falls apart piece by piece.
Our own technical investigation on site
Where it is still possible, we carry out our own investigation at the fire scene. We map fire progression, examine electrical installations, look for possible technical causes (old installations, defective equipment, overheating) and document everything methodically.
Attention to alternative causes
NFPA 921 prescribes that a conclusion is only possible when all reasonable alternatives have been excluded on reasoned grounds. Many insurers’ reports do not do this — they go straight to “intent” without, for example, a thorough analysis of electrical systems or self-ignition. We supply that analysis after the fact.
Conducting discussions with the insurer
Where you must speak further with the investigator or insurer, we prepare you for that, and — where it is justified — we conduct such discussions on your behalf. That prevents an ill-considered statement in an interview being used against you later.
When you should engage us
As soon as you hear the suspicion voiced — whether by the investigator, the claims handler or the police. Do not wait until you receive a refusal letter. The sooner we are in the file, the stronger your position and the more material we can technically substantiate.
Call +31 30 662 2424. We assess without obligation whether a counter-investigation is warranted, and which steps you should take first.