A Leak Inspector report documents the property and inspection date, the symptoms reported to us, the detection methods used, the located leak source with photographs, thermal images, moisture readings by area, and a factual description of the failure observed. It contains no coverage opinion, no settlement figure, and no repair estimate.
Why the deliverable is the point
Anyone can tell you there is water in your wall. The product we actually sell is a documented answer: this is the component that failed, this is where it is, this is how we established it, and these are the measurements. The report is not a receipt for the visit. It is the visit, written down in a form that is still useful a month later when the wall is closed and everyone is working from memory.
Because we do detection only and do not perform repairs or restoration, the report has no commercial angle. We do not benefit from the failure being characterized one way or another. That independence is worth more than any adjective we could put in the document.
Section by section
Property identification and inspection date
Address, date, time of inspection, and the technician who performed it. Mundane, and the first thing anyone reading a file six weeks later needs.
Reported symptoms and stated history
What you told us when you called and what you showed us on arrival, recorded as your account rather than as our finding. A jump in the water bill, a warm floor, a musty odor, a stain that appeared after a storm. We keep this section clearly labeled as reported information because the distinction between what someone told us and what we measured matters.
Visible conditions on arrival
What was observable before we did anything: staining, buckling, efflorescence, standing water, biological growth, prior repairs. Photographed as found.
Detection methodology
Which techniques were applied and in what order. Depending on the situation this includes acoustic listening for pressurized lines, thermal imaging to map temperature anomalies, pressure and isolation testing to determine which system is losing water, tracer gas where acoustic conditions are poor, line tracing to establish pipe routing, electronic moisture metering, and camera inspection for drain and sewer lines.
Naming the method matters because it lets a reader evaluate how the conclusion was reached. A located leak with no methodology stated is an assertion. A located leak with the method described is a finding.
Located source
The specific position of the failure, described in terms someone else can act on: the system involved, the location within the structure, depth or height where relevant, and the marked position on site. Photographed, with a reference shot establishing where in the room the close-up sits.
Thermal imagery
Infrared images showing the moisture footprint and migration path, paired with the corresponding visible-light photograph so the thermal image is interpretable. Thermal imaging shows temperature differential rather than water itself, and our reports say so rather than overstating what the camera proves.
Moisture readings
Meter readings taken across the affected area and recorded by location, not as a single number. Readings mapped across a floor or wall show how far water traveled and in what pattern, which is more informative than a peak value from the wettest point.
Failure description
What was observed at the failure point where it is visible: pipe material, approximate diameter, and the nature of the failure, such as a corrosion pit, a separated joint, a split, or worn-through wall thickness. Where the failure is not directly visible without demolition, the report says that plainly instead of inferring.
Summary of findings
A plain-language recap of what was located and measured. Factual, restricted to the inspection, and free of recommendations about your policy.
What the report deliberately excludes
These omissions are intentional and they are not negotiable:
- No coverage opinion. We do not state or imply whether a loss will be or should be covered.
- No policy interpretation. We do not read your policy and tell you what it means.
- No claim valuation. We do not estimate what a claim is worth or advise on settlement.
- No repair estimate. We do not repair, so we do not price repairs.
- No advocacy language. The report describes findings. It does not argue for an outcome.
Florida Statute 626.854 regulates public adjusting, and the activities above belong to licensed professionals. A detection report that wandered into them would be both unlawful for us and less credible as evidence, since the value of a third-party record is precisely that it is not arguing for anything.
Who receives it
The report goes to you. It is your document and you decide who sees it: nobody, your plumber, your restoration contractor, your carrier, a public adjuster, or an attorney. We do not send it to a carrier on your behalf and we do not represent you in any communication.
If your adjuster has technical questions about our own findings, such as which method we used or what a particular reading represents, we can answer those. That is explaining our work, not advocating for a claim. The line is described further in working with your adjuster after a water loss.
Re-inspection and verification
A second visit after repairs is a separate report rather than an amendment to the first. Verification inspections generally establish whether the previously located failure is no longer losing water, whether moisture levels in the affected materials have returned to normal ranges, and whether any additional moisture is present that was masked by the original leak.
That last one is more common than people expect. A large active leak can dominate the readings and hide a second smaller problem nearby. Once the primary source is repaired and the area dries, the secondary issue becomes measurable. Re-inspection is also useful when a repair was performed by someone else and you simply want an independent confirmation that the water stopped.
What makes a report credible
Not all documentation carries the same weight, and the difference is usually structural rather than cosmetic:
- Method is stated. A conclusion whose basis is described can be evaluated. One that appears without explanation cannot.
- Observation and inference are separated. What the meter read is one thing. What that suggests is another, and the two should not be blended into a single sentence.
- Reported information is labeled as reported. What the homeowner told us is recorded as their account, not restated as our finding.
- Limits are acknowledged. If the failure could not be visually confirmed without demolition, the report says so.
- No advocacy. A document that argues for a result reads as an interested party. A document that describes findings reads as a record.
The last point is the one that gets sacrificed most often elsewhere, and it is the one that matters most.
Timing
Most reports are delivered within about a day of the inspection. If you need it faster because a repair is scheduled, tell us when you book and we will work to the deadline. Adjusters and carriers requesting reports directly should see insurance adjusters and claims support.
Book an inspection
Call Leak Inspector at (941) 214-2222 to schedule a leak detection inspection anywhere in Sarasota, Manatee, Charlotte, Lee, or Collier county. For context on where the report fits in the wider process, see water leak insurance claims in Florida and what documentation insurers typically request.