Catastrophe Event Fraud: How AI-Generated Claims Spike After Natural Disasters

After every major catastrophe event — bushfire, cyclone, flood, earthquake, severe storm — insurers experience a surge of claims. Mixed in with the legitimate claims from people who genuinely lost their homes, vehicles, and possessions are fraudulent claims from people who didn’t.

This is not new. Opportunistic fraud after natural disasters has been documented for decades. What’s new is the tool that makes it dramatically easier: AI-generated evidence.

Why CAT Events Are Perfect for Fraud

Volume Overwhelms Review

A major CAT event can generate tens of thousands of claims in days. The 2022 eastern Australia floods produced over 230,000 insurance claims. Bushfire seasons, cyclones, and severe storm events routinely generate claims volumes that overwhelm normal processing capacity.

Under these conditions:

Adjusters handle 5-10x their normal caseload
Review times compress from days to hours
Straight-through processing thresholds may be raised to speed up payouts
Public and political pressure to pay claims quickly intensifies
Detailed inspection of every claim becomes physically impossible

This is exactly the environment where fraudulent evidence is least likely to be scrutinised.

Damage Is Plausible

In a localised fraud outside a CAT event, the insurer can cross-reference: was there a storm in this area? Was the claimed damage consistent with local conditions? These checks create friction for fraudsters.

During a CAT event, the damage is expected. Everyone in the affected area has a plausible claim. The question shifts from “did damage occur?” to “how much damage occurred?” — and that’s where manipulation thrives. Minor damage exaggerated to total loss. Pre-existing damage attributed to the event. Damage from one property applied to another.

Chaos Enables Opportunity

The period immediately after a disaster is chaotic:

Communication networks may be disrupted
Physical access to damaged areas may be restricted
Independent verification (inspections, third-party assessments) is delayed
Claimants may be displaced, making contact verification difficult
Emergency provisions may relax normal documentation requirements

Each of these conditions makes it harder to verify claims and easier for fraudulent claims to pass.

How AI Tools Amplify CAT Fraud

Evidence Fabrication

Before AI: A fraudster wanting to exaggerate property damage needed to physically stage the damage or photograph someone else’s more severe damage. Both carry risk — physical staging is time-consuming and detectable, and using someone else’s photos risks recognition.

With AI: The fraudster photographs their genuine minor damage, then uses AI editing tools to escalate the severity. Inpainting tools can transform a cracked window into a shattered facade. Image generation can add water damage, fire damage, or structural collapse to genuine photos of the property.

The result: photos that show the correct property, the correct surroundings, and plausible damage — but with severity dramatically exaggerated.

Scale of Fabrication

Before AI: Manufacturing evidence for a single fraudulent claim was labor-intensive. Manufacturing evidence for multiple claims (a fraud ring) required coordination and physical resources.

With AI: Evidence generation scales. A single person with AI tools can generate convincing damage photos for multiple properties, create supporting documentation, and submit claims across multiple insurers simultaneously. The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud has documented organized fraud rings; AI tools reduce the operational requirements for such rings by an order of magnitude.

Temporal Exploitation

CAT events create a narrow window where claims volume is high and review is light. AI tools allow fraudsters to generate and submit evidence within this window — before insurers have time to implement enhanced scrutiny.

A fraudster monitoring weather events can prepare templates and tools in advance, then generate and submit claims within hours of a declared event — positioning their fraudulent claim within the first wave of legitimate claims, when processing speed is prioritized over thoroughness.

Australian Context

Australia’s exposure to natural catastrophes makes CAT fraud particularly relevant:

Bushfires. The 2019-2020 Black Summer bushfires generated over 38,000 insurance claims totalling A$2.3 billion in insured losses (Insurance Council of Australia data). Property damage from fire is visually dramatic and relatively easy to fabricate or exaggerate with AI tools.

Floods. The 2022 eastern Australia floods resulted in over 230,000 claims totalling approximately A$5.9 billion. Water damage is particularly susceptible to AI manipulation — the difference between “flood-affected” and “total loss” can be convincingly fabricated in photos.

Cyclones. Northern Australia experiences regular cyclone seasons. Structural wind damage, debris fields, and roof damage are all content types that current AI tools can generate or manipulate convincingly.

Severe storms. Hailstorms cause significant vehicle and property damage. Hail damage to vehicles — dents, paint damage, windscreen cracks — is among the easiest content types to fabricate or exaggerate with AI image editing.

The Insurance Council of Australia notes that “the cost of fraud, be it opportunistic or pre-meditated, is a cost of claims and adds to the premium cost for all insurance consumers.” During CAT events, when claims volumes are highest and fraud detection is most strained, the premium impact of undetected fraud is amplified.

Detection Strategies for CAT Events

Pre-Event Preparation

1. Establish baseline detection before the event. AI detection should be running on your claims pipeline before a CAT event — not deployed during one. Detection systems need to be tuned, tested, and operational before the surge hits.

2. Plan for surge capacity. If your detection system processes 1,000 claims per day normally, it needs to handle 10,000-20,000 per day during a CAT event without degraded performance. Ensure your detection infrastructure scales.

3. Pre-position cross-reference data. Before an event, compile the data you’ll need for verification: aerial/satellite imagery of the affected area (pre-event baseline), weather data for the event period, property databases for the affected region.

During the Event

4. Screen every claim at intake. During a CAT event, the temptation is to bypass normal checks to speed up processing. This is exactly wrong. Automated detection adds seconds per claim — not hours — and can run while everything else proceeds normally.

5. Cross-reference with geospatial data. After a CAT event, satellite imagery of affected areas becomes available (from services like Maxar, Planet Labs, and government agencies). Cross-referencing claimed damage locations against actual damage patterns is a powerful fraud signal.

6. Cluster analysis. During a CAT event, look for clusters of claims with similar photographic characteristics — identical angles, similar lighting, or shared digital fingerprints. These may indicate a single source generating evidence for multiple claims.

7. Temporal analysis. Claims submitted within hours of an event, before the claimant could plausibly have assessed their damage, warrant enhanced scrutiny. Legitimate claimants in a disaster zone are focused on safety, not insurance claims, in the immediate aftermath.

Post-Event Review

8. Batch re-analysis. After the immediate surge, re-analyze all CAT event claims with deeper detection — including cross-claim image similarity and pattern matching. This catches fraud that passed the real-time screen.

9. Compare claimed vs actual damage. When independent inspections eventually occur, compare the inspection findings against the originally submitted evidence. Significant discrepancies (claim photos showing total loss but inspection finding minor damage) trigger investigation.

10. Feed results back to models. Every confirmed CAT fraud case improves your detection models for the next event. Document the generation tools used, the manipulation patterns observed, and the detection methods that caught them.

The Cost of Inaction

If deepfake-enabled fraud adds even 1-2 percentage points to the fraud rate during CAT events, the dollar impact is massive:

A A$5 billion CAT event with a 10% baseline fraud rate = A$500 million in fraud
If AI tools increase that fraud rate to 12% = A$600 million in fraud
The incremental cost = A$100 million — from a single CAT event

Detection infrastructure that costs a fraction of this amount pays for itself many times over during a single catastrophe season.

deetech provides both real-time detection for claims intake and batch analysis for post-event review — with surge capacity designed for Australian CAT event volumes. Request a demo to discuss CAT event fraud prevention.

Sources cited in this article: