Manned Surveillance vs. Unmanned Surveillance

Today, insurers rely on two primary surveillance approaches: manned surveillance, conducted by a trained investigator in the field, and unmanned surveillance, where technology does the monitoring. As fraud grows more sophisticated, both methods play a critical role in clarifying the truth, especially in cases where information is missing, inconsistent, or difficult to verify.

Understanding how each approach works, and when to use it, is key to achieving the most accurate and defensible results.

What is Manned Surveillance?

Manned surveillance is the traditional, boots-on-the-ground approach, where a highly trained investigator physically observes a subject, documents activity, and makes real-time judgment calls as a situation unfolds.

A human investigator can do things technology simply can’t:

• Follow a subject across town
• Adapt instantly when routines change
• Capture subtle behaviors, context, and inconsistencies
• Make informed decisions based on real-time observations

This level of adaptability is especially important in complex or disputed claims. When an individual reports limitations, such as being unable to bend, lift, walk, or drive, a human investigator is often the only resource capable of accurately documenting the full picture.

Manned surveillance does have limitations. It isn’t conducted 24/7, and it typically costs more than technology-based solutions. However, when the goal is meaningful, high-value footage that can stand up to scrutiny, manned surveillance consistently delivers.

What is Unmanned Surveillance?

Unmanned surveillance relies on technology rather than a physical investigator in the field. It typically includes:

• Fixed cameras
• Motion-triggered systems
• Remote observation tools
• Vehicle- or property-mounted sensors
• Automated monitoring that operates day and night

This approach emerged alongside the industry’s shift toward GPS tracking, continuous monitoring, digital footprinting, and automated data capture, largely in response to increasingly sophisticated fraud tactics.

The biggest advantages of unmanned surveillance include:

• Quiet, unobtrusive operation
• Greater cost efficiency
• Effectiveness in consistent locations, such as a driveway, job site, or residence
• Long-term visibility without scheduling constraints

That said, unmanned surveillance has clear limitations. It can’t move, interpret behavior, follow a subject, or adapt when circumstances change unexpectedly. For that reason, human investigators remain essential to providing context, judgment, and a complete understanding of what’s really happening.

When to Use Manned Surveillance vs. Unmanned Surveillance

Use Manned Surveillance When:

• The claim is complex, high-value, or disputed
• Clear documentation of behavior is required
• A claimant’s routine is unpredictable
• Context, judgment, and real-time decision-making matter
• Actionable evidence is needed that will hold up under scrutiny

Use Unmanned Surveillance When:

• A specific location needs to be monitored over time
• The subject follows a predictable pattern (for example, leaving for work daily)
• Continuous, cost-effective monitoring is required
• Manned surveillance is not yet feasible, but intelligence is still needed

In practice, the most effective strategy combines both approaches. Many insurers use technology to identify patterns and narrow timing, then deploy an investigator when meaningful activity is most likely to occur. This hybrid approach helps close visibility gaps and maximizes investigative efficiency.

Why Surveillance Matters in Today’s Claims Environment

The scale of potential misrepresentation in today’s claims environment is larger than many realize:

• Traditional internal fraud detection methods analyze only a small portion of open injury claims, while continuous monitoring has identified additional claims with fraud indicators that were not flagged by existing models or referrals.
• In 2023, U.S. employers reported 2.6 million nonfatal workplace injuries, including 946,500 cases involving days away from work, a volume of claims where verifying reported activity is essential.
• Fewer than 2 out of every 100 insurance fraud cases are ultimately prosecuted, making strong, well-documented evidence a key factor in determining whether a case moves forward.

Surveillance, both manned and unmanned, helps bridge the gap between suspicion and proof, providing objective insight that supports better claim decisions and defensible outcomes.

In an environment where misrepresentation is increasingly sophisticated, visibility matters. A coordinated surveillance strategy, combining technology-driven monitoring with experienced investigators, provides the clarity needed to validate claims, control costs, and move cases forward with confidence. Explore our surveillance solutions to see how the right mix of technology and field expertise can support stronger, more defensible outcomes.

Check out our sources:

“Insurance Fraud Reaches Billions as Traditional Detection Methods Miss Majority of Clues.” Risk & Insurance, R&I Editorial Team, 10 July 2025, https://riskandinsurance.com/insurance-fraud-reaches-billions-as-traditional-detection-methods-miss-majority-of-clues/.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. There Were 2.6 Million Nonfatal Workplace Injuries and Illnesses in 2023. The Economics Daily, U.S. Department of Labor, 15 Jan. 2025, https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2025/there-were-2-6-million-nonfatal-workplace-injuries-and-illnesses-in-2023.htm.