Activity Checks vs. Surveillance: What’s the Difference?

You may have heard activity checks and surveillance tossed around interchangeably in claims discussions. Using the right term and, more importantly, the right method at the right time, can mean the difference between a smart, cost-saving strategy and wasted dollars or missed red flags.

What is an Activity Check?

An activity check is a low-cost, ground-level investigation designed to gather baseline intel on a claimant. It’s not about gathering definitive proof, but it sets the stage for whether deeper investigation is warranted. This tactic is commonly used by claims teams to ensure the next step makes sense financially and strategically.

Here’s how an activity check typically works:

• Drive-bys: Observers look for vehicles, outdoor equipment, or accessibility aids that may contradict a claimant’s alleged limitations.
• Neighborhood inquiries: Conversations with neighbors or others familiar with the claimant’s routine.
• Routine observations: Noting daily patterns, property maintenance, or activity levels during a short visit.
• Online/social vetting: When legally permissible, reviewing public social media or online activity to support observational insights.

The purpose is to evaluate whether the claimant’s reported injury aligns with their real-world behavior, and whether a surveillance investment is justified.

Example:

A claimant reports being bedridden with chronic back pain, unable to drive or walk without assistance. But during an activity check, an investigator notes two vehicles in the driveway that were recently used, a neighbor mentions seeing the claimant walking to the mailbox and unloading groceries, and the yard appears well maintained. Additionally, a public social media post shows the claimant standing and unpacking shopping bags. While not definitive proof, these findings raise valid questions about the claimed limitations and justify moving forward with surveillance.

What is Surveillance?

When the intel from an activity check raises red flags, or if there’s already strong reason for suspicion, surveillance is the next step. Surveillance is a targeted, time-stamped observation designed to capture hard proof evidence of the claimant’s behavior.

Methods include:

• Manned: A trained investigator follows or observes the claimant undercover, using video or photography to document activity.
• Unmanned: Deploying discreet, stationary, or remote-operated cameras that offer continuous monitoring over extended period, often more cost effective and less detectable.

The purpose is to deliver verifiable, admissible evidence for hearings, depositions, litigation, or claim denial, so insurers can make decisions grounded in documented fact.

Example:

After the activity check raised questions, surveillance was initiated. Investigators monitored the home during a weekday afternoon and documented the claimant lifting heavy boxes out of the trunk of a car and carrying them inside without assistance. Additional footage over the next two days showed the claimant walking through a grocery store parking lot, loading multiple bags into a vehicle, and bending with no visible difficulty. Unlike the general impressions from the activity check, this surveillance produced timestamped video evidence directly contradicting the claimant’s reported restrictions, providing the claims team with admissible proof to challenge the claim.

When to Activity Checks vs. Surveillance in Claims Investigations

Activity checks and surveillance are complementary tools. Knowing when to use each can protect budgets and strengthen claims outcomes.

Activity checks are best used when:

• A cost-efficient, early read on claimant activity is needed.
• The goal is to determine whether surveillance is justified.
• More information is required before committing to a larger investment.

Surveillance is best used when:

• Red flags have already been raised.
• Admissible evidence, such as videos or photos, is necessary for hearings or legal proceedings.
• Claim-reported litigations need to be confirmed or refuted.

Jumping straight to surveillance without an activity check can burn resources if nothing significant is uncovered. Likewise, shifting strategies without purpose can weaken a case. The most effective approach is to begin with the broad view activity checks provide, then proceed with surveillance if the findings indicate it’s warranted.

Both approaches bring value to the claims process, but they serve different purposes. An activity check answers the question, “What’s going on?” while surveillance addresses, “Can it be proven?”

For claims adjusters and SIU teams, the distinction matters. Starting with the right approach conserves resources, strengthens evidence, and reduces the risk of missed red flags. When activity checks and surveillance are used strategically and in sequence, they deliver a clearer picture of claimant behavior and, ultimately, stronger claim outcomes.

Want to know when to use activity checks versus surveillance for your claims? Reach out today and get expert guidance.