It is curious to hear FEs pontificate about “cosmetic” and “functional” damage when rarely do the same speakers acknowledge the broader term “direct physical loss” which (it can be assumed) is the etymological root of the neologisms they so warmly embrace. Most FEs assert “functional” damage (and by association “cosmetic” damage) as engineering terms yet hold “direct physical loss” taboo because it is an insurance term-of-art used to establish coverage. The mere utterance of “direct physical loss” by a FE can raise eyebrows among peers, let alone accusations of collusion based on the preposterous notion that FEs best serve their clients when they are ignorant of their client’s workaday vocabulary.<\/p>\n

The lack of communication is a two-way street. Consider an Insurance Adjuster who retains a FE to identify “structural damage” to a given property. The Adjuster means direct physical loss to the building’s structure as opposed to the building’s contents, but the FE presumes this to mean “structural damage” as opposed to “non- structural” or “cosmetic” damage. With her head buried in SEI\/ASCE-7, the FE tediously investigates the Main Wind Force Resisting System (MWFRS) while ignoring the cracked Venetian plaster. The FE reports “no structural damage”, the Adjuster hears “no damage”, the claim is denied, and all Hell breaks loose.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n