Photos and status updates posted on social media sites can be valuable keys in an insurance fraud case. Most investigators today dedicate at least some of their research time to online sources, such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and MySpace. And it’s paying off, as recent cases have shown that evidence gathered through social media can be helpful in proving and disproving allegations.

But how do investigators know that what they uncover in these online searches is showing what they think it is showing? Could there be another explanation for a photo that shows someone who is claiming a disability benefit running a marathon?

Legitimate Information Source

“Social media and the resources of social media sites have made more information available to investigators that they previously might not have had access to unless they had put direct questions to (and gotten honest, candid answers from) insurance claimants,” says Roy Mura, a New York insurance fraud attorney and partner in the firm Mura & Storm PLLC.

FREE Investigation Report Template

Prepare thorough, consistent investigation reports with our free report template.

Download Template

But relying too heavily on information gathered from the internet without verifying and authenticating it before using it for a claims or underwriting decision can be a huge mistake, he warns.

Mura gives an example of an insurance investigator who used Facebook photos as evidence in a fraud case.  The insurance company lost the case because it had not asked the claimant for an explanation of what the photos showed.

“The claimant offered an explanation during the hearing and it was satisfactory to the hearing judge,” says Mura. Whether or not it was true didn’t matter, as the company hadn’t done the authentication or verification process and the defendant was able to offer another plausible explanation.

Direct or Indirect

Direct verification is simply asking the individual from whose social media account the evidence was taken to verify the assumptions that the investigator is relying on as evidence. This could include:

• Whether a photo or post belongs to the individual
• Who is in the photo or update
• What the photo or post is showing or saying
• Timing of the update or photo
• Location information

Along with the direct verification, investigators should also gather as much indirect verification as possible that the social media evidence is authentic and represents what the investigator assumes it represents. Indirect verification can include:

• Metadata that shows times, locations, identities and IP addresses of computer used to create social media evidence
• Witness statements
• Any other evidence that corroborates what is shown by the social media evidence

Cover All the Bases

The biggest mistake an investigator can make when using social media evidence, says Mura, is relying too heavily, or even exclusively, on this one source of information.

Once an investigator has established and verified the authenticity of the social media evidence, he or she can use it in combination with other “old-fashioned” investigative techniques to build enough information to make a decision, he says. Relying solely on social media content, especially if it has not been properly authenticated, is a sure way to lose a case.