Case Study: Preventing a $100,000+ Fraudulent Instrument Claim

In the realm of high-value insurance claims, a few key missteps can lead to significant financial loss. This is especially true when claims involve specialized items like musical instruments—where perceived value can be manipulated by individuals hoping to take advantage of unfamiliarity within the adjusting process.

Ashthorne Advisory was recently engaged to review a suspicious piano claim involving a 1935 Gulbransen baby grand. The claimant, relying on an appraisal provided by their piano technician, sought a replacement payout of $140,000. What appeared on paper to be a justified request quickly unraveled into a textbook example of attempted insurance fraud.

The Reported Loss

The piano in question was a 1935 Gulbransen 5’1” baby grand that had been stored in an unfinished basement. Its condition was poor. The ivories were discolored and separating, the shellac finish showed extensive cracking, and there was no record or indication of any restoration work in its lifetime.

The claim was filed following reported water damage. The insurer, uncertain about the valuation, requested a second opinion from Ashthorne Advisory before authorizing a six-figure payout.

Initial Red Flags

Upon receiving photographs of the piano, Ashthorne’s specialist immediately raised concerns. The idea that a distressed, unrestored Gulbransen warranted a $140,000 replacement cost was implausible. Further compounding the suspicion was the documentation provided by the claimant’s technician, who also happened to be a piano salesperson.

The technician’s letter stated that the appropriate modern equivalent of the lost piano was a Steinway Model S baby grand—one of the most premium 5’1” instruments on the market. Not only was this comparison unsupported by any technical or historical alignment, but the replacement price provided was also inflated far beyond standard retail.

Ashthorne’s Assessment and Response

Once formally retained, Ashthorne conducted a full virtual investigation. Using the serial number, our team confirmed the piano’s year of manufacture, identified its original specifications, and verified the lack of any restoration history. The piano’s modest scale, brand reputation, and condition placed it well outside the realm of collectible or high-end valuation.

To identify an appropriate modern replacement of like kind and quality, Ashthorne surveyed current market options and determined that a Ritmüller 5’ grand—known for its reliability and mid-tier construction—was the most reasonable match. We then obtained quotes from two independent dealers to verify availability and pricing.

Finally, Ashthorne prepared a comprehensive report outlining the rationale behind our recommendation, including the discrepancies in the appraisal, market-based justification for our valuation, and a breakdown of the inflated dealer claims.

Findings and Misrepresentations

The dealer’s letter claimed a replacement cost of $140,000 for a Steinway Model S. In truth, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for that model was closer to $92,000, and standard selling prices often fell below that figure depending on dealer policies. Even with taxes, delivery, and bench options, the submitted estimate represented a grossly inflated cost.

Beyond the inflated numbers, the assertion that a Steinway was a suitable replacement for a decades-old Gulbransen was fundamentally incorrect. The original piano was not of comparable quality, either in terms of craftsmanship or brand prestige. As such, the submission crossed the line from exaggeration into intentional misrepresentation.

Resolution

Interestingly, no on-site inspection was ever required. Once the insurer presented Ashthorne’s findings, the claimant contacted the adjuster directly and agreed that their technician had exaggerated the claim. In their words, the technician had been “full of it.” The claimant agreed to a revised settlement based on the Ritmüller estimate and thanked the insurer for handling the matter fairly.

Though the submission included documents that could have warranted legal scrutiny for fraud or misrepresentation, the insurer chose not to pursue further action. The claim was resolved swiftly, professionally, and without escalation.

Lessons for Insurers

This case highlights several key insights for professionals managing high-value claims:

Specialized knowledge is essential. Without the ability to assess the true quality and standing of a piano brand, insurers may rely on inaccurate appraisals or exaggerated invoices.

Watch for conflicts of interest. The technician advising the claimant was also positioned to benefit from the sale of a replacement instrument.

Documentation should always be verified. In this case, MSRP comparisons, real-world dealer quotes, and historical brand data exposed clear inconsistencies in the claimant’s submission.

Early involvement of an expert consultant can save time and cost. Ashthorne’s virtual review prevented a six-figure overpayment and reinforced the insurer’s credibility in the eyes of their customer.

Conclusion

Ashthorne Advisory saved the insurer over $100,000 in this single case and helped their team resolve the matter with professionalism and clarity. For claims involving pianos and other fine instruments, early expert consultation is not only prudent—it is essential.

When valuation matters, Ashthorne Advisory is the trusted partner for delivering results based on accuracy, experience, and integrity.