Catastrophe Response Playbook

Articles

Authored by: Rimkus Forensics Marketing Team

Published 4/3/2026

A hurricane makes landfall on a Thursday. By Friday morning, a regional insurer has received thousands of claim reports, with adjusters still in transit, vendors unreachable, and no documented plan for which claims need a forensic investigator. Organizations in that position may face payment delays, lost evidence, and questions from regulators, all of which pre-event planning may have helped reduce.

A catastrophe response playbook is a planning document intended to help address that outcome. It outlines who is responsible for what, who has authority to make key decisions, what conditions should trigger additional investigation, and how everything should be documented before a disaster strikes. The goal is to give claims teams and forensic investigators a clear plan to follow during rapidly evolving post-event conditions.

This article covers what a playbook typically includes, which disaster types may call for different investigative approaches, and how the seven-phase build process works.

Key Takeaways: What a catastrophe response playbook can offer

A catastrophe response playbook is a pre-written guide that helps claims teams handle major disasters without improvising. It typically covers who decides what, when to bring in outside help, and how to document claims consistently under pressure.

What it covers

  • Roles, escalation points, and documentation procedures for specific disaster types
  • Claims process decisions — how losses are estimated and evidence is preserved — not just emergency safety

Why it matters

  • Physical evidence of what caused a loss can change quickly once cleanup begins; a plan in place may support earlier documentation
  • Organizations without a written plan may face greater difficulty recovering after a major event

A well-built playbook is intended to address both priorities before an event occurs, not after. To learn how Rimkus supports catastrophe response and forensic investigation, contact Rimkus.

What is a catastrophe response playbook?

Most organizations have some version of an emergency plan, which is usually a set of instructions for keeping people safe when something goes wrong. A catastrophe response playbook is different. Where an emergency plan focuses on evacuation and immediate safety, a playbook focuses on what happens next: how claims are managed, how decisions are made, and how response activities are documented and coordinated after the event.

Those post-event decisions are where things often break down. For insurance organizations, that means having documented answers to questions like:

  • how to take in and sort through large volumes of incoming claims
  • who has authority to approve payments and settlements
  • when to send out adjusters and forensic investigators
  • how to communicate with policyholders and meet any reporting obligations that may apply under relevant state rules

Because these decisions can affect operational continuity, claims handling, resource allocation, and stakeholder communications, documenting them before a disaster strikes is often beneficial. That way, when a hurricane or wildfire generates thousands of claims overnight, teams are following a documented process rather than improvising. Core components often include a clear chain of command, a review of which geographic areas carry the most risk, step-by-step procedures by event type, guidance on preserving evidence, and schedules for training and practice drills.

Why does catastrophe planning matter for claims operations?

That list of components may seem like a lot, but the scale of what a major disaster actually demands makes clear why each one is necessary. The U.S. alone experienced 27 weather events in 2024 that each caused over a billion dollars in damage, totaling $182.7 billion in economic costs, based on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reporting. A major disaster usually creates a situation where claim volume spikes at the exact moment that staff, access, and communications are most strained. A playbook may help teams keep their process consistent even when the situation is anything but.

That challenge becomes harder for organizations that have no documented plan to fall back on. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) business continuity resources address why organizations without written plans are generally more vulnerable to disruption and difficulty recovering after a major event.

Operational disruption is one risk. A separate and equally significant risk is losing the ability to reconstruct what happened. Physical indicators of what caused a loss (things like damage patterns on a roof, waterlines on a wall, or debris scattered across a property) can change quickly once cleanup and emergency repairs get underway. 

A playbook that identifies in advance which situations call for a forensic investigator, and how the scene should be documented, may help preserve information relevant to understanding the cause and extent of damage and supporting subsequent claims evaluations.

How does catastrophe response typically work?

Understanding why planning matters is one thing. Understanding how a catastrophe response actually operates in practice helps explain what a playbook needs to account for. When a major disaster is declared, insurance catastrophe response generally moves along two tracks at once: what state regulators expect from insurers, and what the insurer’s own internal plan calls for.

State regulators may set expectations around how quickly claims are acknowledged, how adjusters are deployed, and how policyholders are treated during the claims process. Insurers typically layer their own internal plan on top of that, with pre-set conditions for when to scale up staffing, bring in outside vendors, and send field teams to affected areas.

Forensic investigation may fit into this process at specific points. Not every claim calls for a forensic investigator, but one is commonly considered when:

  • there is a dispute about what caused the damage, especially when more than one potential cause is involved
  • the building shows signs of significant structural damage or partial collapse
  • there is reason to believe another party may share responsibility for the loss
  • a large commercial claim creates uncertainty about how much money the insurer should set aside to pay it
  • the claim involves complex causation questions or circumstances that may require additional technical evaluation

Knowing in advance which situations fall into those categories, rather than making that call under surge conditions, is part of what a playbook is designed to do. For organizations that need forensic support, Rimkus Forensic Services commonly include on-site inspections, material sampling and testing when appropriate, and review of relevant documentation. The resulting technical findings may help inform coverage evaluations, payment estimates, reserve setting, repair scope determinations, and other claim-related decisions.

What catastrophe types present the greatest claims challenges?

The triggers described above, disputed causation, structural damage, and potential third-party responsibility, show up differently depending on what type of disaster caused the loss. Planning that accounts for those differences is generally more useful than a one-size approach. Different disasters create different claims challenges, in terms of what questions need to be answered, what access problems arise, and what evidence tends to disappear first.

Seven event types commonly present distinct claims challenges:

  • Hurricanes: A major part of the investigation often involves figuring out how much damage was caused by wind versus water (storm surge or flooding), which matters when those two causes are covered by separate policies or carry different coverage terms
  • Floods: Disputes often focus on how high the water got, whether the force of moving water (as opposed to standing water) contributed to structural damage, and exactly when and where flooding occurred across the property.
  • Earthquakes: Many earthquake policies calculate the policyholder’s share of the loss (the deductible) as a percentage of the property’s insured value rather than a fixed dollar amount. Thorough documentation of what was damaged, and how severely, is commonly referenced when working through those calculations.
  • Tornadoes: Rotating winds and straight-line winds can both occur in the same storm. The direction and pattern of damage across a property is often relevant to whether the loss matches the type of event described in the policy.
  • Wildfires: Physical evidence of how a fire spread can be destroyed quickly. Investigations may need to sort out how much damage came from direct flames, heat radiating from nearby fires, embers landing on the structure, smoke, or water used by firefighters.
  • Winter storms: Questions about roof damage or collapse often come down to how much weight the roof was carrying, what the snow conditions were like, whether drainage was working, and what the maintenance history looks like.
  • Structural fires and explosions: These events often require detailed documentation because conclusions regarding origin, cause, damage progression, and contributing factors may influence coverage evaluations, repair decisions, and recovery efforts.

Across all seven, technical investigation is often considered when understanding what caused the damage goes beyond what a standard claims adjuster is positioned to evaluate on their own.

What role does pre-event staging play in catastrophe readiness?

Those event-specific challenges may be harder to navigate when preparation starts only after a storm has already hit. A playbook that covers only what to do after an event may leave gaps that pre-event staging is designed to fill. Pre-event staging refers to the steps an organization takes before a forecasted event arrives, like moving resources into position, locking in vendor agreements, and getting field teams ready to move. It may help reduce how long it takes to respond and how much early response costs.

Pre-event staging activities typically documented in a playbook include:

  • watching weather forecasts and identifying in advance the specific conditions that will trigger an internal response
  • approving adjuster deployment and vendor contracts ahead of time so teams can move without waiting for new sign-offs
  • setting up temporary claim-handling operations near areas expected to be affected
  • preparing communication templates for policyholders, regulators, and internal teams before the phones start ringing
  • confirming which forensic investigation vendors are available and what situations will trigger their involvement

Organizations that stage resources before an event may be positioned to reach affected properties sooner and document site conditions before cleanup and emergency repairs change what is there to see. That early access is where technology increasingly plays a role: weather monitoring tools, maps showing where policyholders are located, and drone-based damage assessment are increasingly used in pre-event and early-response planning by carriers with dedicated catastrophe programs.

How is a catastrophe response playbook built?

Pre-event staging, along with every other activity described in this article,  generally works best when it is written down in advance and tied to specific triggers. That is what a formal playbook provides. A practical playbook typically follows a seven-phase framework that spans pre-event preparation through post-event review.

Phase 1: Establish planning authority. The first question any playbook needs to answer is: who is in charge? This phase identifies who owns the playbook, who is authorized to put it into action, and who steps in to make time-sensitive decisions if the primary decision-maker is unavailable.

Phase 2: Conduct a risk assessment. With authority established, the next step is understanding what the organization is actually facing. This phase generally covers which natural hazards are relevant to the organization’s geographic footprint, which properties and systems would be most affected, and what factors (like building age, construction type, or location) could influence how much damage occurs.

Phase 3: Implement preventive controls. With a clear picture of the risks, Phase 3 turns that knowledge into action taken before a disaster arrives. These steps may include reinforcing or protecting specific properties ahead of a storm, locking in vendor contracts in advance, planning how teams will access affected areas, and making sure important records and systems are backed up and accessible if primary systems go down.

Phase 4: Document response procedures. This is the operational core of the playbook, and it builds directly on what Phase 3 established. It covers the specific conditions that trigger a response, how staffing and workload will be managed, how teams communicate internally and with outside parties, and what steps are taken to keep additional loss from occurring.

Phase 5: Create documentation protocols. Responding to an event is only part of the challenge — how that response is recorded matters just as much. Consistent documentation is especially important in catastrophe response because claims are often reviewed, disputed, or litigated long after the event. Protocols typically cover how photos and video are captured, how scene notes are recorded, how physical materials are handled if they need to be tested later, and how records are stored securely.

Phase 6: Establish training and testing. Having documentation in place is not the same as being ready to use it. A plan that has never been tested may not hold up when it matters. Training can help prepare staff to follow the playbook under pressure, and practice exercises can reveal gaps in how teams communicate, whether vendors can deliver on their commitments, and whether the plan accounts for realistic access and staffing challenges. These exercises often start with a facilitated walkthrough of a scenario and build up to larger drills involving all relevant teams and vendors.

Phase 7: Maintain and update continuously. Testing and real events alike tend to surface things that need to change. A playbook needs to stay current so that what was learned is actually reflected in what the team does next time. Common reasons to update include acquiring new properties, changes in response leadership, updates to state regulations, changes in the tools the organization uses to estimate potential losses, changes in vendor relationships, and lessons learned after an actual event.

One approach to developing a catastrophe response playbook is to organize planning activities into seven phases that can be reviewed and refined after each event.

Building operational resilience before the next event

A playbook built across those seven phases gives an organization something most teams lack when a major event hits: a tested, documented plan they have already practiced following. Organizations that invest in that kind of preparation before an event may be better positioned to recover more efficiently, document losses consistently, and support claims handling activities with more complete information.

Our catastrophe teams are composed of civil, structural, architectural, mechanical, and electrical engineers who are ready to provide the crucial and timely analyses that are vital in the evaluation of the damage. WeatherPath™, Rimkus’ in-house weather data application, is a useful tool our experts use to provide visual representations of catastrophic weather events and develop analyses for the events in relation to any investigation.

To discuss catastrophe response planning or forensic investigation support, contact Rimkus.

Frequently asked questions

What situations commonly lead a claims team to bring in a forensic investigator during a catastrophe response?

Forensic support is commonly considered when the cause of damage is unclear, when structural damage is significant, when multiple contributing factors may be involved, or when technical analysis is needed to evaluate the extent of loss. In complex commercial property claims, forensic investigators may provide specialized expertise beyond the scope of a standard claims review.

How do investigators typically sort out wind damage from flood damage during a hurricane claim, and why does it matter?

Investigators commonly look at damage patterns across the property, where debris ended up, how high the water rose, and how different materials failed — all as part of understanding what caused the loss. That distinction matters because wind and flood coverage are often governed by separate policies or separate terms within the same policy, and the source of damage may affect what is covered and by how much.

How do organizations typically test whether their catastrophe response playbook will actually work under pressure?

Many organizations start with a facilitated tabletop session, where a team works through a realistic scenario together to find gaps in the plan — things like unclear decision authority, communication breakdowns, or vendor coordination problems. More involved drills and full-scale simulations typically follow, testing whether teams can actually execute the playbook when facing realistic time pressure and claim volume.

This article is intended to provide general information and insights into prevailing industry practices. It is not intended to constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal, technical, or professional advice. The content does not replace consultation with a qualified expert or professional regarding the specific facts and circumstances of any particular matter.