Recent investigations have brought to light serious allegations against ITEL Laboratories and its parent company, Global Claims Services (GCS). These revelations challenge the long-held perception of ITEL as an independent entity, suggesting a deeper, profit-driven collaboration designed to undermine policyholders and contractors.
Get the Full Report
The complete ITEL and GCS report as a PDF, yours to keep. Tell me where to send it.
Occasional notes on claims and the restoration industry. Unsubscribe anytime.
ITEL Laboratories, Inc., established in 1993 and headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, is a provider of material testing services for the property insurance industry. The company offers pricing and matching services for various building materials, including flooring, roofing, and siding, to assist in claims settlement processes.
Over the years, ITEL has expanded its services and data capabilities, building an extensive database of building products and data points to support its analysis. The company has also formed partnerships with technology platforms and contractor networks to enhance decision-making and streamline the property claims process.
In 2021, ITEL became part of Global Claims Services (GCS), an insurance technology platform providing cost-containment solutions to the property and casualty insurance industry. This acquisition aimed to enhance ITEL’s technology-driven solutions and expand its impact on claims processing efficiency and accuracy.
ITEL and GCS: A Concealed Connection
Evidence indicates that ITEL Laboratories and Global Claims Services are not separate entities but are intrinsically linked, operating under different names to mask a significant conflict of interest. Notably, the domain “globalclaimsservices.com” redirects to ITEL’s official website, indicating a deliberate attempt to obscure their association.
The Illusion of Independence
For years, ITEL has marketed itself as an “independent laboratory,” providing unbiased material testing services to the insurance industry. However, this portrayal is misleading. By operating under the guise of independence, ITEL has allegedly furnished reports that favor insurance carriers, enabling them to minimize payouts by asserting the availability of matching materials, even when such matches are questionable.
Manipulating Material Matches
A particularly troubling aspect of these allegations is the claim that ITEL, under GCS’s direction, produces reports indicating that materials can be matched when they cannot. This practice allows insurance companies to opt for repairs over full replacements, often leading to substandard restorations and diminished property values for homeowners.
Attempts to Erase Digital Footprints
Following the exposure of these connections, ITEL executives reportedly removed references to GCS from their professional profiles. This action has been interpreted as an effort to conceal the relationship between ITEL and GCS, further casting doubt on their claims of independence.
A Call for Accountability
These revelations extend beyond the corporate entities to those individuals and partners complicit in these practices. ITEL employees are urged to reconsider their participation in what is described as a “systematic devaluation” of homeowners’ properties. Additionally, corporate partners are called upon to reevaluate their associations with ITEL, emphasizing the ethical implications of continuing such relationships.
Impact on Policyholders
The alleged actions of ITEL and GCS have had profound effects on policyholders. Homeowners have reportedly been left with devalued and poorly repaired homes, as insurance companies leverage these biased reports to justify inadequate settlements. This not only undermines the trust between insurers and clients but also raises significant concerns about the integrity of the claims process.
The allegations against ITEL Laboratories and Global Claims Services paint a concerning picture of deception and fraud within the insurance restoration industry. The purported collusion between these entities to misrepresent their independence and manipulate claims processes calls for immediate scrutiny and action. It is imperative for industry stakeholders, regulators, and policymakers to investigate these claims thoroughly, ensure accountability, and implement measures to protect the rights and properties of policyholders.
Andrew G. McCabe is a restoration professional and industry advocate dedicated to promoting transparency and fairness within the insurance restoration sector.
From its inception, ITEL was not created as a neutral, independent entity. It was designed and implemented by insurance carriers with one clear objective: to reduce claim severity and minimize payouts. ITEL’s existence has always been a tool for insurance companies to limit their exposure, not a resource for fair and balanced claim resolution.
Get the PDF
Both Broken Trust ITEL articles in one PDF, yours to keep. Tell me where to send it.
Occasional notes on claims and the restoration industry. Unsubscribe anytime.
For decades, ITEL marketed itself as an impartial third-party laboratory for material testing and identification, presenting an image of independence that policyholders and contractors were led to trust. However, allegations from industry insiders, such as Matt Gregory, CEO of Apex Era, have shed light on a starkly different reality. According to Gregory, ITEL’s parent company, Global Claim Services (GCS), dictates ITEL’s operations to serve the financial interests of insurance carriers. Gregory accuses key figures such as Brian Matthews, Bob Logan, and Chris Touin of orchestrating what he calls a “white-collar racketeering crime” to maximize profits for GCS and its affiliates at the expense of policyholders and contractors.
One of the most troubling aspects of ITEL’s practices is the manipulation of its material matching process. Reports that once used clear indicators like a green check for a suitable match or a red ‘X’ for no match have been altered to provide a match for virtually everything. This change effectively justifies insurance carriers’ decisions to repair rather than replace, even when a true match is unavailable. ITEL’s connection to Discontinued Materials, Inc. (DMI) further deepens the conflict of interest. DMI profits directly from ITEL’s material matches by selling outdated or discontinued materials deemed suitable for repairs, creating a closed loop of profiteering.
As a restoration professional who has been in the trenches for over two decades, I have witnessed firsthand the ways in which tools like ITEL have been leveraged against contractors and policyholders alike. What ITEL claims to offer—impartial material matching and testing—has, in reality, been a mechanism to justify underpaying claims and sidestepping full replacements when they are warranted. The veneer of independence has always been thin, and for those of us who deal with these reports daily, it’s clear that the system was rigged from the start.
Over the years, insurance companies have developed a range of tools and practices designed to shift the financial burden away from themselves and onto the backs of contractors and policyholders. ITEL is just one cog in this larger machine.
Let’s not mince words here: the impact of these practices is significant. For contractors, it means thinner margins, more disputes, and the impossible task of delivering quality work while navigating an intentionally flawed system. For policyholders, it means less-than-adequate repairs, delays in restoring their homes or businesses, and the gut-wrenching realization that the coverage they’ve been paying for doesn’t actually deliver when they need it most.
ITEL reports used to clearly indicate when a material match couldn’t be found, often necessitating full replacement. But as the system evolved to serve the carriers’ bottom line, those clear indicators disappeared. Now, every report seems to magically find a match—whether or not that match is feasible or fair. And when those matches point toward discontinued materials, ITEL’s relationship with companies like Discontinued Materials, Inc. (DMI) reveals a deeper conflict of interest. The very same entities that claim to assess the situation impartially are profiting from the results of those assessments.
This isn’t just about ITEL. It’s about the broader ecosystem of control that insurance carriers have built over the years. From managed repair programs to preferred vendor lists, these systems are not about providing better service or fair resolutions—they’re about control and cost containment. The result is an industry where trust has eroded, and those of us who genuinely care about doing right by policyholders are left fighting an uphill battle.
In the coming articles, I’ll delve into other facets of this systemic problem. We’ll explore how pricing structures like Xactimate have been manipulated, the rise of carrier-driven networks that restrict contractor independence, and the long-term effects these practices have on the restoration industry and homeowners alike.
This fight isn’t just about money. It’s about integrity, transparency, and fairness. As restoration professionals, we have a responsibility to stand up against these practices. And as policyholders, you deserve to know the truth about the systems that claim to protect you but often work against your best interests.
ITEL was never the standard—it was the insurance industry’s strategy. And recognizing that is the first step toward reclaiming fairness in our industry.
Andrew G. McCabe
~Rebel Leader
This article is the first in a broader series that will expose how insurance carriers have systematically chipped away at contractor profits and, more importantly, the rightful claims of their own insureds.
Bibliography
Gregory, Matt. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation Against ITEL Laboratories. Apex Era Briefing Document, October 2023. Link
Global Claim Services. Corporate Overview and Operational Goals. Link
Discontinued Materials, Inc. (DMI). Material Sales Practices and Connections to ITEL. Link
