By SPJ Adjusting Services | Insurance Appraisals
RMAPIA Fire Protocols reveal that when a wildfire or structural fire tears through a home or business, the visible damage is only part of the true loss. When a wildfire or structural fire tears through a home or business, the damage we observe is merely what has happened on the surface. Within the walls, insulation, HVAC systems, and porous building materials lie toxic byproducts that can insidiously create long-term health risks. All too often, though, policyholders are pushed toward quick “clean-and-paint” solutions, prioritizing cost savings over actual safety.
At SPJ Adjusting Services, we have seen that across Colorado’s East Troublesome and Marshall Fires, throughout Southern California’s wildfire corridors, and in dozens of smaller but equally devastating residential losses. That is why the industry-changing RMAPIA Fire Protocols demand attention: toxicology-based, scientific testing, and practical field experience define this rare, no-nonsense roadmap for determining whether a fire-damaged structure is indeed safe to repair or requires full replacement.
And the answer, far more often than insurers like to admit, is this:
If contaminants exceed safe thresholds, repair isn’t just inadequate-it’s dangerous.
Below, we break down exactly what those protocols translate to for policyholders, why the insurers tend to resist them, and how a homeowner can protect themselves by having evidence, science, and the right professionals in their corner.
Why RMAPIA Fire Protocols Matter Right Now
A Scientific Rebuttal to “Just Clean It” Approaches
Insurance carriers generally base their assumptions of safety on cursory inspections or generalized hygienist reports that minimize contamination. RMAPIA’s work flips that model on its head. Instead of guessing at safety, the protocols rely on a Universal Fire Testing Method rooted in toxicology and real-world health science.
This universal testing covers analysis in the following areas:
Volatile Organic Compounds, commonly referred to as VOCs.
PAHs: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Heavy Metals
Dioxin and furan
Asbestos Fibers
The ingredients will penetrate deeply into:
Framing
Dry wall
Attic insulation
Concrete
Electrical pathways
Fabrics and personal property
HVAC systems
Even microscopic contamination, once breathed, can cause respiratory distress, autoimmune diseases and other long-term environmental sickness. The protocols define toxic thresholds, detail EPA-approved testing methods, and then specify interpretive rules, leaving very little to guesswork or insurer minimization
Four levels of fire loss: a smarter way to classify the damage
Instead of the “repair vs. replace” tug-of-war common in regular claims handling, the protocol introduces a four-tier system for categorizing fire losses. Each category focuses on:
Presence of toxic byproducts
structural compromise
Safety of re-occupancy
Feasibility of repair
Long-term pollution risks
This categorization gives the adjuster and the policyholder real actionable clarity-not from cost reduction, but from science. Where toxic exposure thresholds are exceeded in those categories, the protocols take a firm stance:
Replacement is the only safe option.
This mirrors what we’ve seen firsthand: partial cleaning, encapsulation, or cosmetic repairs routinely fail, leaving families exposed to contaminants for years.
Where Insurers Push Back and Why Policyholders Should Be Ready
To its credit, the RMAPIA Fire Protocols were written from an adjuster’s perspective. They strongly advocate for policyholders’ safety and insurers often contest the high standards of proof and cost justification the protocols demand.
But here’s what can’t be overlooked:
- Many insurers retain generalist hygienists
The list of “insurer-approved” hygienists lacks wildfire specialization and employs sampling methods that miss deep contamination. - The procedures necessitate transparency.
Every testing method should be reproducible and based upon EPA or governmental standards-not proprietary sampling that conveniently favors repair. - Insurers’ repair recommendations often underestimate the risk
For instance, encapsulation traps contamination under coatings – but the vapors still off-gas into living space.
It is important to highlight that such protocols help to specify or detail in a more systematic and evidence-based way all these weaknesses, thus being a very strong ally when one faces resistance.
The Most Controversial Theme: Why Cleaning Often Fails
One of the most important-and hotly debated-parts of the protocols concerns cleaning:
HVAC systems
Contents
Structural materials
Attics and crawl spaces
Porous surfaces and soft goods
Why cleaning is unlikely to succeed in severe fire losses.
Porous building materials can absorb toxins much further than the reach of surface cleaning.
HVAC systems act like superhighways of contamination, redistributing particulates each time a system is used.
Encapsulation paints trap the contamination but never neutralize it.
Few restoration crews have the equipment or training to do deep decontamination to scientific standards.
RMAPIA explains the reasons these methods fail due to physical and chemical issues that range from microstructure limitations in wood and concrete to molecular behavior of fire by-products.
This is important in relation to the policyholders because insurers often recommend these very methods as “cost-effective solutions.
The Real-World Impact: Lessons from the Field
The following are some of the issues SPJ has represented home owners for:
Colorado’s East Troublesome Fire
The Boulder/Marshall Fire
Los Angeles wildfires
Hundreds of structural fire losses nationwide
Superficial cleaning was recommended by the carrier initially in each case despite contamination results showing unsafe levels of:
Benzene
Naphthalene
Formaldehyde
heavy-metal particulates
Char-laden insulation
Case after case has demonstrated that full replacement was the only route to a safe, healthy home. The RMAPIA protocols validate what policyholders and experienced adjusters have known for years:
If toxic exposure is confirmed, rebuilding is non-negotiable; it’s not an option.
Why These Protocols Should Be Required Reading for the Industry
Fire claims combine the interrelated layers of science, engineering, toxicology, and construction in ever more complex ways. Until now, no single comprehensive work field-tested in the courts has existed to pull together the threads.
They should be required readings for:
Field adjusters
Claims managers
Public adjusters
Independent adjusters
Industrial hygienists
Restoration contractors
Policyholder advocates
Because behind every fire claim is a family, a business, a human life-not a line item.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will the methods of testing be legally recognized?
Yes, the protocols rely on testing methods approved by EPA and accepted by industry.
Can I request this level of testing from my insurer? Absolutely, your policy entitles you to a full and fair assessment of damage. Does every fire require a full replacement? No, but any fire with toxic contamination above threshold levels of safety does. Why does my insurance company recommend cleaning instead? Cost. Replacement is more expensive. Cleaning is less expensive even when unsafe
CALL TO ACTION
The status and relationship between arbitrators and parties are, therefore, intricate and complex. Serving the United States of America with Insurance Appraisal and Umpire Services
