Improving Coating Failure Claim Response for Coating Manufacturers

1. Early site investigations set the direction

The initial site visit is one of the most critical stages of any coating failure investigation. However, early inspections are frequently carried out by technical service personnel whose expertise lies in product support rather than formal claims investigation.

Common limitations include:

• Limited experience in structured Root Cause Analysis.
• Incomplete understanding of the asset history and supporting documentation.
• Insufficient time for comprehensive evidence collection.
• A focus on technical inspection rather than claim management.

As a result, early observations often establish the narrative that guides the remainder of the investigation. If the initial assessment lacks sufficient evidence or objectivity, the entire investigation may require costly rework, reducing customer confidence from the outset.

2. Early assumptions can influence later findings

Once an initial hypothesis has been recorded, it often shapes subsequent technical reviews. This can unintentionally create confirmation bias, where later evidence is interpreted to support the original conclusion rather than objectively evaluating all possible causes.

Typical consequences include:

• Alternative failure mechanisms being overlooked.
• Limited review of historical documentation and operational records.
• Insufficient interviews with key stakeholders, including owners, contractors, shipyards, and supplier personnel.
• Investigation scope becoming unnecessarily restricted.

Although rarely deliberate, these biases reduce the reliability and defensibility of the final conclusions.

3. Internal investigations often become resource intensive

As investigations progress within the supplier’s technical organisation, significant internal resources are frequently consumed reconciling changing evidence and evolving conclusions.

Common challenges include:

• Extensive report revisions.
• Changing opinions as new evidence emerges.
• Limited verification of corrective actions.
• Weak supporting evidence, particularly for newer products.
• Potential bias arising from internal ownership of the product under investigation.

These issues complicate customer communication, warranty decisions, and legal strategy while increasing investigation costs.

4. Weak processes become more visible during disputes

When coating failures escalate into arbitration, adjudication, or litigation, shortcomings in the investigation process become increasingly apparent.

Typical weaknesses include:

• Multiple conflicting report revisions.
  Poorly organised documentation.
• Unclear causation supported by insufficient evidence.
• Reports requiring substantial rewriting by external experts.

These issues undermine the credibility of otherwise technically competent organisations.

5. Independent expertise improves outcomes

Early involvement of independent coating specialists can significantly strengthen both technical and legal defensibility.

Benefits include:

• Neutral and objective initial inspections.
• Structured evidence collection and Root Cause Analysis.
• Comparison with similar industry-wide failure cases.
• Clear, well-documented reports suitable for commercial and legal use.

Although often viewed as an additional cost, early independent involvement frequently reduces overall investigation costs, accelerates resolution, prevents escalation, and strengthens customer trust.

6. Best practices for stronger claim management

Organisations can improve coating failure response by implementing several practical measures:

1. Provide specialist claims investigation training for personnel involved in failure response.
2. Develop dedicated claims procedures separate from routine technical service activities.
3. Allocate appropriate investigation budgets to support testing, expert review, and independent analysis where required.
4. Minimise duplicated work by adopting investigation methods that remain robust should external experts become involved later.

These practices improve consistency, reduce rework, and strengthen decision-making throughout the claims process.

Conclusion

Effective coating failure management depends on more than technical expertise – it requires a structured, evidence-based investigation process from the very beginning.

Three key principles underpin successful claim resolution:

1. Early independent involvement prevents escalation by improving objectivity and reducing long-term costs.
2. High-quality initial investigations are essential, as early assumptions often shape the entire investigation.
3. Structured, evidence-based Root Cause Analysis strengthens both technical conclusions and legal defensibility, supporting clearer customer communication, better commercial decisions, and more successful dispute resolution.

By embedding these principles into standard claims procedures, coating suppliers can improve investigation quality, reduce internal effort, minimise commercial and legal risk, and build greater confidence among customers and stakeholders.