Am I Required To Mitigate After A House Fire?

THE TAKEAWAYS

Emergency mitigation is “stop the bleeding,” not rebuilding. The goal is to stabilize the property and prevent additional damage, not to start reconstruction or gut the home under the label of emergency work.
Most policies expect reasonable steps to prevent further damage, but “reasonable” is the guardrail. You are typically expected to secure the home and prevent avoidable secondary loss, and those costs are often covered, but that does not justify unlimited work or an open-ended contract.
At a certain severity level, mitigation can become minimal or even futile. In major losses, the smart version of mitigation often shifts to safety, securing the site, and preserving what can realistically be salvaged, rather than aggressive drying or tear-out.
Fire-chasing mitigation companies create risk through urgency, paperwork, and loss of evidence. The biggest pitfalls are signing away control, inflated or disputed invoices, work that interferes with the insurer’s inspection, and spoliation (destroying the proof needed to support the claim).
Hiring a Public Insurance Adjuster at True View Commercial at the onset of your claim can help you determine what mitigation is required. Your trusted Public Adjuster will also warn you of common pitfalls with mitigation vendors and fire-chasing contractors.

Emergency Mitigation After a House Fire: What the Policy Really Requires (and What Can Go Wrong)

At True View Commercial, our Public Adjusters handle the adjusting of millions of dollars in residential house fires each year. When speaking to our clients about what was going through their minds at the time of the loss, we started to find some commonalities. After a residential house fire, homeowners usually feel two things at once.

One part of them wanted to move fast: “Get someone here right now. Do whatever it takes. I just want this stabilized.” This usually stemmed from an emotional position that taking some kind of action was better than nothing, and hopefully it means that something can be saved.

The other part of them was filled with nervous skepticism: “If I let someone start tearing into the house, am I going to mess up my claim?” Doubt and concern seem to creep in when they realize that there are often dozens of contractors begging the homeowner to let them start mitigation work immediately, given the homeowner very little time to think clearly and qualify companies ahead of time.

Emergency mitigation sits right in the middle of those two instincts. Done correctly, it protects the property, preserves evidence, and keeps the claim on track. Done poorly, it creates a second disaster; unnecessary demolition, inflated invoices that will not be paid by the insurance company, destroyed proof/evidence, and an insurance fight that did not have to happen.

Let’s talk about what mitigation really is, whether the policy requires it, how to spot “too much mitigation,” when mitigation stops being useful, and why fire-chasing mitigation is one of the most common ways a fire claim gets complicated.

What “Mitigation” Actually Means After A Fire

Mitigation is not rebuilding. It is not remodeling. It is not “restoring the house back to normal.” Mitigation is the immediate, limited and short-term work that prevents additional damage after the loss.

In a house fire, that usually means the boring but critical stuff: securing openings, keeping weather out, and dealing with the water that the fire department had to use to save what they could. Sometimes it includes limited removal of materials if they are truly unsafe or if leaving them will keep causing damage. A simple way to think about it is this: mitigation is “stop the bleeding,” not “complete the surgery.”

Is Mitigation Required By The Policy?

Most homeowners' policies include a section that basically says you have duties after a loss. One of those duties is usually some version of “protect the property from further damage” and “make reasonable emergency repairs.”

That does not mean the insurer expects you to rebuild your home the day of or immediately after the fire. It means they expect you to act reasonably so the loss does not get worse due to preventable issues like weather exposure, theft, or water damage from firefighting efforts.

This is also why mitigation is commonly covered when it is truly emergency work. The policy often pays for reasonable costs that are necessary to protect the property and prevent additional damage. The word that matters here is “reasonable.” Not unlimited. Not open-ended. Reasonable. However, some fire-chasing contractors use "mitigation" as a hook to get insureds to sign for services that they may not need. Some fire-chasing contractors will tell the homeowner that mitigation is required by their policy and that they must do it. In many cases, mitigation protocol is "whatever the contractor does at the time and for the cost that the contractor determines". In reality, mitigation protocol should focus on a plan that considers the damage profile and severity of the loss and what the general restoration scope objective should be, paying special attention to limits and health, life, and safety concerns.

Should The Insured Do Mitigation?

Most of the time, yes, mitigation should happen. The better question is: should the insured allow just anyone to do it, on whatever terms, while the house is still smoking?

That is where people get burned twice, pun intended. A homeowner does not need to personally be out there boarding up windows or setting drying equipment. But the homeowner should stay in control of what is authorized and make sure the work stays within the lane of “emergency stabilization”.

If you take nothing else from this, take this: it is possible to move fast without giving away control.

Is There Such A Thing As “Too Much Mitigation”?

Yes. There absolutely is. It usually shows up when mitigation companies use it as a revenue strategy instead of a protective measure. Some fire-chasing contractors or mitigation companies use it as a way to start working and convince insureds to sign contracts for larger services.

Here is what “too much mitigation” looks like in a real-world scenario.

Sometimes a crew shows up and immediately starts pulling out large sections of drywall, cabinets, flooring, or insulation under the argument that “we have to do this to dry the house.” In some cases, that might be true. But it is also one of the easiest places to overreach, especially if the person making the call is more focused on expanding scope than protecting the home. This is especially apparent when the damage is so severe, that removing the damaged material will not stop any damage from getting worse. The damage is already done. This is when mitigation is a futile effort, and more of a sales trap.

There is an uncomfortable truth that we see time and again, but it needs to be said clearly: there are losses where aggressive mitigation does not make sense.

Think of it this way. If the home is essentially a total loss, or the structure is severely compromised, you may not be able to “dry it out” or “save it” in any meaningful way. At that point, mitigation is less about restoration and more about protecting the site and preserving what can be preserved. In severe losses, the smart version of mitigation often looks simple. Secure the property so no one gets hurt or breaks in. Protect what contents are realistically salvageable. Document everything before anyone starts removing materials. Then coordinate the next steps through the claim process.

The goal is not to perform miracles. The goal is to act reasonably and safely and not let the loss get worse from preventable causes.

Spoilage Of Evidence

There is perhaps one of the biggest issues that most homeowners do not realize until it is too late: mitigation can erase evidence. Spoilage means the destruction, alteration, or loss of evidence that should have been preserved for a dispute or claim, when someone knew or reasonably should have known that the evidence would matter. If materials are removed, cleaned, or thrown away without proper documentation, you can lose proof of how far smoke traveled, how deep heat damage went, what was saturated, what was unsalvageable, and what quantities were actually impacted.

Your claim is not just about what happened. It is about what you can prove happened. You may be left thinking, "No, way. Surely an expert mitigation company would know better than to destroy evidence needed for my claim!". We see this frequently. An overzealous mitigation company conducts demo or starts removing items before the scene has been cleared by investigators. It only takes removing one key item without proper authority or documentation to ruin a scene and the chances of a pre-loss recovery.

The Fire-chasing Mitigation Trap

Most homeowners do not call a mitigation company. The mitigation company finds them. They show up fast. Sometimes within minutes. Sometimes they already know the address because they monitor fire calls, dispatch channels, or leads being sold in the background. They arrive with urgency, confidence, and paperwork ready to sign.

And the pitch might sound like this:

“You have to do this right now. If you don’t, your insurance can deny the claim.” Or "Who is your insurance company? YES! We work with them and will bill them directly!", that is where you slow down. Not because you want to delay. Because you want to prevent a second disaster.

Those lines work because they might be partially true, but dangerously misleading. Yes, you generally need to act reasonably to prevent additional damage. No, that does not mean you should sign a broad contract with the first company that appears in your driveway. This is where the pitfalls start.

The first pitfall is paperwork. A lot of fire-chasing outfits push agreements that give them heavy control over the claim funds or direct access to insurance proceeds. The homeowner thinks they are signing an emergency work authorization, but buried inside can be language that functions like an assignment of benefits, direct pay authorization, or an authorization to bill the homeowner for anything that the insurance company doesn't cover. This leaves the homeowner stuck in the middle if the insurer disputes the invoice.
The second pitfall is that mitigation becomes the claim. Instead of a short, reasonable stabilization phase, it becomes an expensive, open-ended operation. Drying equipment stays longer than it should. Charges multiply. Demolition expands. And suddenly the carrier is not just adjusting the fire loss, they are fighting about whether this “emergency invoice” is legitimate.
The third pitfall is that early work can interfere with inspection. If a vendor starts removing large sections of damaged materials or cleaning areas that need to be documented, it can create a dispute not only about price, but about what was even there in the first place.
And the fourth pitfall is the one that homeowners almost never see coming: once a fire-chasing company is embedded early, it can be difficult to stop the train. Some contracts are written in a way that makes it expensive or legally messy to switch providers, even if you realize the work is excessive or the billing is aggressive.

How To Think About Mitigation In A Way That Keeps You Safe

The cleanest approach is to separate the emotional urgency from the practical necessity. You want your home stabilized. That is normal. But stabilization should not require surrendering control.

So here is a healthy mindset: emergency mitigation should be limited, well documented, and tied to a clear reason. If a vendor cannot explain the “why” behind what they want to do, that is a problem.

A tarp makes sense because it prevents rain from pouring into the home - If you're entire roof is missing and your home is essentially a total loss, a tarp does not make sense.
A Board-up makes sense because it prevents theft and vandalism.
Water extraction makes sense because standing water turns into mold and structural deterioration fast - If you're home is so severely damaged that the enire thing will be gutted as part of a normal scope of repairs, emergency mitigation may not make sense.

What Homeowners Should Do Instead

If you are standing in front of a damaged home and trying to make decisions under pressure, the best move is to keep things simple:

Start with safety, and do not let anyone talk you into work that is outside the emergency lane. Stabilize openings. Protect the structure from weather. Address immediate water damage. That is usually the core.
Document everything before it changes. Photos and video matter more than people realize. Keep a basic log of what happened and what was done.

Finally, it is our opinion as Public Adjusters, that when it comes to contracts, treat them like you would treat any major agreement. Read them. If you do not understand them, do not sign them in the driveway. A legitimate emergency vendor can still do the immediate safety work without trapping you in a broad agreement that gives them control of the claim funds.

The Bottom Line

Emergency mitigation after a house fire is usually expected, and it is often covered when it is reasonable and necessary to prevent further damage. But “mitigation” is not a blank check. It is not a justification for broad demolition. It is not a reason to start reconstruction early. And it is absolutely not a reason to let a fire-chasing company take over the claim through urgency and paperwork.

The best claims are the ones where the home is stabilized quickly, a Public Adjuster is employed, evidence is preserved, documentation is strong, and a custom recovery plan is built with the insured's best interests in mind. If you are dealing with a residential house fire in Texas, contact True View Commercial today for a no-cost claim consultation.

*True View Commercial is a licensed Public Adjusting Firm and does not offer legal advise.