Top EDR Mistakes in Claims Investigations

In today’s world of increasingly complex claims investigations, the event data recorder (EDR) has become one of the most valuable tools available. Sometimes called the vehicle’s “black box,” it captures critical crash details like speed, braking, throttle position, and seatbelt use in the seconds before impact.

When used correctly, EDR data can confirm or contradict witness statements, uncover staged accidents, and strengthen liability determinations. That’s because these devices are highly regulated. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), EDRs in light vehicles are required to capture at least 15 core data elements and meet minimum data survivability standards.

Despite the promise of EDR data, there are significant gaps in what EDRs currently capture when it comes to pre-crash behavior. The NHTSA “Pre-Crash Duration Study” found that vehicles equipped with EDRs failed to record driver braking initiation more than 5 seconds before impact in about 35% of rear-end, intersection or road-departure crashes. Steering input initiation was missed in 64–88% of similar crashes.

Even with these limitations, event data recorders remain one of the most objective tools available to investigators. EDR evidence holds huge potential in claims investigations, but only when it’s secured, extracted, and interpreted correctly.

1. Not Securing the EDR Data Early Enough

Timing is everything when it comes to the event data recorder. Many investigators don’t realize that EDR data can be overwritten or lost altogether if the vehicle is moved, repaired, or restarted too many times after the crash.

Because EDRs reside within the vehicle’s systems, any ignition cycles, module replacements or crash-repairs can jeopardize the data. The NHTSA notes that in some models the EDR non-deployment event data is typically cleared after 250 ignition cycles or about 60 days of driving. Thus, it is critically important to download and preserve EDR evidence as soon as possible after a collision.

From a claims investigations viewpoint, this matters because when the data disappears, you lose the objective record of the seconds before impact, and you’re left relying on witness statements, physical evidence, or reconstruction alone.

2. Using Unqualified or Uncertified Technicians in Claims Investigations

Event data recorder extraction isn’t as simple as plugging in a reader and hitting “download.” It’s a specialized, highly technical process that requires certified Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) operators using approved hardware and software.

Yet, one of the most common and costly errors in claims investigations is allowing unqualified personnel or third-party vendors to handle EDR downloads. Improper handling doesn’t just risk corrupting the data; it can render it inadmissible in court.

Example:

A case highlighted by a California defense attorney involved a claims investigation where the EDR download was conducted by an uncertified vendor. The resulting report showed only partial data, missing 1.5 seconds of critical pre-crash information, including braking inputs. When the case went to court, opposing counsel successfully challenged the chain of custody and the validity of the data, resulting in the exclusion of the EDR evidence altogether.

The NHTSA states that improper retrieval methods can lead to “partial, corrupted, or non-representative datasets,” undermining the reliability of evidence.

Bosch, the manufacturer of the most widely used CDR system in North America, requires technicians to undergo formal training and maintain current software to ensure accurate downloads. These systems support over 95% of vehicles on U.S. roads, meaning that almost every modern car involved in a crash will require a properly certified technician.

3. Over-Reliance on Raw EDR Data in Claims Investigations

One of the most common mistakes in claims investigations is assuming EDR data tells the whole story.

While EDRs can provide critical insights, like speed, throttle position, and brake use, these readings are limited snapshots. They must be interpreted alongside scene evidence, vehicle damage, and human testimony. Misreading or over-relying on raw data can lead investigators to draw inaccurate conclusions about fault or driver behavior.

EDRs are not crash recorders in the same sense as aviation black boxes. They record only a small number of parameters, usually covering about 5 seconds before impact, and data may be incomplete, inaccurate, or not representative of the crash dynamics.

In fact, a 2023 NHTSA evaluation found that approximately 28% of EDR datasets analyzed were missing one or more key parameters, often due to faulty sensors or unsupported firmware. That means nearly one-third of the time, the data alone can’t provide a complete picture of what actually happened.

Example:

In one Florida claims investigation involving a rear-end collision, an adjuster initially relied on EDR data showing 0% brake application to deny liability. However, further analysis revealed that the airbag control module had powered down milliseconds before impact due to battery damage. The “no braking” reading was actually a data gap, not a true reflection of driver behavior. Once the physical tire evidence and witness statements were reviewed in context, the claim outcome was reversed.

4. Ignoring Chain of Custody and Documentation in Claims Investigations

In claims investigations, chain of custody is the foundation of evidence integrity. It refers to the documented record of who collected, handled, and transferred the data from start to finish. Without it, opposing counsel can and will challenge the authenticity or accuracy of your data.

Unfortunately, this is one of the most overlooked aspects of EDR evidence management. Investigators often focus on getting the download but not on proving that the data remained unaltered from collection to courtroom.

The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud warns that:

Weak documentation protocols and mishandled electronic data are now among the leading causes of evidence exclusion in fraud-related litigation.

Courts have repeatedly excluded EDR evidence when chain of custody was incomplete, unclear, or poorly documented.

Example:

In a 2022 insurance defense case in Texas, a claims investigation team downloaded EDR data from a totaled SUV but failed to record the technician’s software version or preserve the original binary file (.BIN). When challenged, the court determined the data “could not be authenticated as unaltered,” leading to its exclusion. The case ultimately settled unfavorably, costing the insurer both credibility and leverage in negotiations.

5. Overlooking Compatibility Issues in Claims Investigations

The technology behind event data recorders evolves almost as fast as the vehicles themselves, and that’s where many investigations go wrong. Not every EDR can be read using the same tools or software versions, and overlooking compatibility can lead to partial, corrupted, or completely unusable data.

In fast-paced claims investigations, it’s easy to assume a standard download will capture everything. But as vehicle electronics become more advanced, firmware mismatches are one of the top reasons EDR downloads fail or return incomplete results.

EDR extraction tools, like the Bosch CDR system, must constantly update to keep pace with new vehicle models and electronic control modules. According to Bosch, the CDR software is updated six to eight times per year, and each version adds or modifies supported vehicles, firmware types, and module readouts.

The NHTSA notes that:

Variation in manufacturer design and firmware updates can significantly affect EDR accessibility, data format, and accuracy.

This means an outdated retrieval system might not recognize a newer model year vehicle, or worse, could return only a fragment of the available crash data, without warning the operator.

Example:

In a 2023 claims investigation out of Kansas City, Missouri, a certified technician used an outdated CDR software version to download data from a 2024 Ford F-150. The download appeared successful, until expert review revealed that critical fields like “seatbelt status” and “steering angle” were blank. The version used did not yet support the truck’s updated firmware. The incomplete dataset forced a costly re-inspection and delayed settlement by several weeks.

A similar issue has been documented in NHTSA’s EDR Field Performance Report, which found that approximately 17% of analyzed crash investigations involved incomplete or unrecognized data due to version incompatibility or module design changes.

6. Failing to Communicate Findings Clearly in Claims Investigations

Even when the event data recorder download is accurate, complete, and verified, its impact often comes down to one thing: how well the findings are communicated.

A common mistake in claims investigations is presenting EDR results as dense, technical reports full of acronyms and raw numbers. Without context, those findings can confuse adjusters, attorneys, or even juries, weakening otherwise solid evidence.

The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud has repeatedly highlighted poor reporting as a barrier to effective fraud prevention:

Complex data loses its value when stakeholders can’t interpret or apply it. Translating forensic findings into actionable insights is the key to making technology work for the claims process.

Example:

In one multi-vehicle loss investigation in Illinois, a technical expert produced a 40-page event data recorder report filled with raw data and abbreviations, but no clear summary or conclusions. Without proper context or explanation, the adjuster reviewing the file misread the data, believing the insured vehicle had accelerated before impact when throttle position readings were steady. The misunderstanding led to a misassigned liability decision and a three-month delay in resolution.

When the case was re-evaluated with a simplified visual summary and plain-English explanation, the insurer quickly identified the true at-fault driver and successfully defended against a subrogation claim.

7. Overlooking Legal Pitfalls

Even when investigators do everything right technically, EDR evidence can still fall apart in court if it’s collected or handled improperly from a legal standpoint. Every jurisdiction treats event data recorder information a little differently, and failure to follow those laws can render even the best data inadmissible.

Under the Driver Privacy Act of 2015 (49 U.S.C. § 30122), event data recorder information belongs to the vehicle owner or lessee, not the insurer, investigator, or repair facility. Accessing or downloading that data without proper authorization can violate federal law and lead to civil penalties or exclusion of evidence.

NHTSA reinforces this point clearly:

Ownership of EDR data resides with the vehicle owner or lessee. Retrieval of the data without consent or proper legal authority may violate federal or state privacy laws.

This means claims investigations must have written owner consent or a legal order such as a subpoena before accessing EDR data. Ignoring this step can expose investigators and carriers to privacy claims or challenges to the admissibility of evidence.

Example:

In State v. Worsham (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 2017), police accessed a crash vehicle’s EDR without a warrant. The appellate court ruled the data inadmissible, citing Fourth Amendment privacy protections.

While that case involved criminal proceedings, the same principles apply in civil litigation: if data is obtained without consent or proper authorization, it’s at risk of being thrown out.

Even flawless technical evidence can be useless if it isn’t legally sound. In claims investigations, knowing the law is just as important as knowing the data.

Turning EDR Data from a Liability to an Advantage

Event data recorders have transformed modern claims investigations, offering objective, time-stamped insight into what really happened before a crash. Yet their value hinges on one thing: how carefully the data is handled.

From securing the vehicle early to using certified technicians, verifying software compatibility, maintaining documentation, and following privacy laws, every step determines whether EDR becomes a powerful ally or a potential liability.

When managed correctly, EDR evidence can strengthen liability decisions, expose staged or exaggerated claims, and accelerate fair settlements. Handled carelessly, it can just as easily undermine credibility or be thrown out in court.

Treat EDR evidence with the same rigor as any digital forensic record because in today’s data-driven claims environment, outcomes may depend on it.

Want to turn EDR data into defensibility? Connect with our experts today. 

Check out our sources:

Bosch Automotive Service Solutions. Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Software and Hardware Information. Bosch Diagnostics, 2024,
https://www.boschdiagnostics.com/cdr.

Coalition Against Insurance Fraud (CAIF). Fraud Technology and Data Integrity in Insurance Investigations. CAIF, 2023,
https://insurancefraud.org/.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 49 CFR Part 563: Event Data Recorders. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2023, https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/event-data-recorder.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). EDR Field Performance Report. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2023,
https://www.nhtsa.gov/.

United States Congress. Driver Privacy Act of 2015. Public Law 114–94, Title 49 U.S. Code, § 30122.

State v. Worsham, 227 So. 3d 602 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017).