Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 01/30/2013 3:59 PM by Jud G.
NFIP as the underlying
35 Replies
|
|
HuskerCatVeteran Member Posts:762
01/09/2013 11:36 PM |
|
This question is for you that handle flood losses. I'm now in the boat of handling a couple of "excess flood" coverage claims. Having never handled an NFIP loss, I'm not 100% on what may or not be covered. To explain further, this is a commercial loss. I've been able to find the personal lines flood coverage form, but not the commercial. And, as an indy inside examiner, you come here or there for the expert answers (um, C Deaton, maybe? (see if he's still up, no it's not 430am...Roy hasn't fixed the time clock...must be Hawaii time zone)
And so far, the underlying/primary carrier hasn't provided me with the coverage details. All my policy tells me is... to paraphrase, "we pay up to the limits specified, after the primary flood carrier has exhausted their limit...but only for loss as covered by the primary".
So, my query to the underlying/primary has been...what are your covered items & what are your non-covered items (whether these be Bldg or BPP)?; and are you writing your estimate to include everything? Or, are you stopping when you hit your limit and leaving me in limbo as far as what are covered loss items according to your primary policy?
It would be great if the primary field adjuster would respond to me; it would be greater if the primary carrier/broker would provide me with the underlying coverage form; and it would be even finer, if someone here on CADO might be able to chime in.
It's clear that "what it is, is going to be what it is". But, does the underlying carrier/adjuster have an obligation to go beyond their coverage limit and line-item each and every piece of damaged property as to whether it would or could be covered...despite the limits in place?
If they got lazy, and stopped when they hit the limit...what would you suggest? My field adjuster did an inspection, but of course a lot of things had taken place prior and evidence was only partial.
Helpful hints will be appreciated. Even if it's only Chuck.
|
|
Tags: Flood |
0 |
|
Jud G.Advanced Member Posts:509
01/10/2013 9:08 AM |
|
Some of your excess policies will be written in the same vein as the NFIP policy; very restrictive and lacking in common sense with regard to what should reasonably be covered.
Some excess flood policies will use the NFIP policy only as a deductible. Once the damages exceed the base limit ($500K for example), then you have the doors opened to a whole new arena of coverage possibilities with regard to damages that can be considered for payment.
The tricky part for some of these excess or DIC forms is to determine in the case where you have $300K in damages written by the NFIP adjuster. What happens if you could write up $600K in damages by the increased provisions of the excess policy even though the flood policy limits were not exceeded? Some forms may be very explicit in this regard. Obviously, this is not known until you get the form(s).
Based on what is usually at stake in regard to coverage interpretation, you need to push for a copy of the forms for your policy. I would suggest very loose concerns (possible coverage issues) in your report as you do so.
Once you receive the policy, place your thoughts regarding the policy's application and suggest expert coverage counsel. You will be surprised and may discover that the form will even include wind coverage along with flood.
I know you won't get a specific answer from me, but at least you will know what general issues you need to address. Good luck!
|
|
0 |
|
ChuckDeatonLife Member Senior Member Posts:1110
01/11/2013 10:57 PM |
|
I make a living handling large excess claims and sharing my knowledge, stock in trade, in a public forum, ain't likely. Should you be interested in hiring a competent national general adjuster I am available.
"Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
|
|
0 |
|
HuskerCatVeteran Member Posts:762
01/12/2013 1:26 AM |
|
Posted By ChuckDeaton on 11 Jan 2013 10:57 PM
I make a living handling large excess claims and sharing my knowledge, stock in trade, in a public forum, ain't likely.
Should you be interested in hiring a competent national general adjuster I am available.
OK, Chuck... I don't think I was asking anybody to re-adjust the loss; just a little advice or info on the commercial flood coverage form language. You've never had a problem "sharing your knowledge in a public forum" before, so I thought I'd I reach out...particularly to you; and as a favor to me and all your fans. I guess that didn't work out for you.
But in the meantime, I have been reached back to by the party I needed the information from. So, all is good. And, I do thank Jud for his remarks. At least that was a positive. This thread can be put to bed.
|
|
0 |
|
HuskerCatVeteran Member Posts:762
01/12/2013 1:30 AM |
|
I must be not be paying enough at my hotel...sometimes, everything I type in on the wireless comes out very "stylish" once it posts, particularly when it's a "reply". Maybe it's operator error, or still living in the dark ages like OKC Larry with the bag phone.
|
|
0 |
|
MedulusModerator Veteran Member Posts:786
01/12/2013 7:41 AM |
|
From your original post, Huskerguy, I can't tell what type of policy you are dealing with. But, like Jud, I am assuming that an excess flood policy is written as a DIC policy. These are actually inland marine forms, and quite a different animal. I've spent the last five years working with DIC policies, and even had a hand in contributing (in some small way) to writing DIC earthquake and flood policies. But until you get a copy of the policy you cannot begin to know the terms of the policy. If it is a DIC form, I can give you a pointer or two before you start wading through the umpteen types of excluded property followed by the umpteen excluded causes of loss. So, I guess the question is: Is this a DIC policy with which you are dealing?
Steve Ebner CPCU AIC AMIM
"With great power comes great responsibility." (Stanley Martin Lieber, Amazing Fantasy # 15 August 1962)
|
|
0 |
|
ChuckDeatonLife Member Senior Member Posts:1110
01/12/2013 5:54 PM |
|
Just from reading the posts, my guess is that both Medulus and Jud G. are short on Excess Flood experience. The commercial flood policy is available on the NFIP website. Be sure you read and understand before making reccomendations.
"Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
|
|
0 |
|
LelandAdvanced Member Posts:741
01/12/2013 10:32 PM |
|
Chuck is so crabby but he is right about 81% of the time. I got so pissed at him the other day I didn't ask him any questions for about 5 days. He has a point that DIC and excess are two different things. Anyway, just forget about Chuck. Detachment is an important emotional trait for the successful CAT adjuster. Just put Chuck out of your mind and be glad he is not your file examiner. Here is a video of Mr. John Lee Hooker of Mississippi explaining what flood is really about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77pm...C50552790A
|
|
0 |
|
ChuckDeatonLife Member Senior Member Posts:1110
01/13/2013 10:05 AM |
|
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Leland, I think that was a vote or maybe 81% of a vote.
It would be best to remember that this is the real world and while we are friends I ain't yo momma.
My considered opinion is that discussing the ins and outs of handling large excess claims on a public forum is, well, ill advised.
As you well know, Leland, I have a telephone and I answer my calls.
"Keep on truckin' mama, truckin' my blues away"
As it is a rainy, dreary Sunday morning may I suggest some Mississippi John Hurt...............................
"Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
|
|
0 |
|
LelandAdvanced Member Posts:741
01/13/2013 12:04 PM |
|
Dear Mr. Deaton As you are aware I am the adjuster handling your complaint. We have reviewed the additional evidence you provided on an internet chat forum as well as considered your comments in a telephone call of January 1, 2012. After careful consideration of all the evidence we have determined that a grade of 91% is reasonable, reflecting only a 9% discount for errors. Based on our conversation it is our understanding that you are in agreement with this revised grade. If our understanding is in any way incorrect, please advise the undersigned immediately. In regards to your comments regarding the propriety of discussing the intricacies of flood claims handling on a public forum we draw your attention to the fact that we never advocated for such a discussion nor actually participated in it in any substantive way. We were merely attempting to lighten the mood in what appeared to be a mutual firing squad of well meaning but potentially disastrous advice. We can assure you that we will never again attempt such reckless humor without carefully weighing the possible consequences. We value our relationship and look forward to its continuation. Sincerely, Leland
|
|
0 |
|
01/13/2013 2:01 PM |
|
Now that's DAMN funny. Signed Muddy Waters
Give them what they want, when they want it, and how they want it !
|
|
0 |
|
01/13/2013 6:57 PM |
|
Now THAT'S what I call a Professional DENIAL letter........ But I will have to say one thing....If we are talking about flood and NFIP...then I must go with the one and only Blues artist..... Muddy Waters !! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIbFJETrScI
Give them what they want, when they want it, and how they want it !
|
|
0 |
|
Jud G.Advanced Member Posts:509
01/14/2013 1:16 PM |
|
Wow, I did not know that an adjuster who has experience in both authoring DIC forms and adjusting their losses is short on experience. On that note, I don't see much need to justify my earlier post or ability for that matter. That form of criticism doesn't make you a better adjuster, it just exposes insecurity. Granted, while NFIP forms are public information, excess forms are not. In light of the diverse array of language and interpretation from form to form (excess/DIC), it is indeed capricious to assume that the NFIP will dictate what excess forms will pay for. I have not yet seen this, but I would surmise that it is possible for excess forms to acknowledge strict adaptation of the NFIP's provisions and limiting clauses. So far, any of my time spent reviewing information beyond confirming the limits of the NFIP policy has been a complete waste. I'm not about to declare myself an expert in these forms. Yet, with my current experience and the handful of large exposures I currently have open, I'm happy to provide a few generic pointers with loose comments. I always suggest expert coverage counsel when coverage becomes questionable. Good day.
|
|
0 |
|
HuskerCatVeteran Member Posts:762
01/14/2013 9:10 PM |
|
I didn't realize that such a simple question would evoke all of entertaining responses! Then, again looking back...maybe so.
I tried to end this conversation (ie. "put this thread to bed""). Must go back to the old sayings of "input = output", or "what comes in one ear or the eyeballs & gets all scrambled up in between before it exits the mouth or keyboard prior to leaving".
The references to recognizing and appreciating a little bit of humor, I guess....sometimes get lost among a certain percentage of some.
|
|
0 |
|
ChuckDeatonLife Member Senior Member Posts:1110
01/15/2013 2:45 AM |
|
I will freely admit not having access to the excess flood forms that govern the claims handled by Mr. HuskerCat, however I handle and am handling excess flood claims occasioned by Super Storm Sandy and have decades of experience both in commercial flood and in handling multi million dollar excess claims, commercial, residential and RCBAP. A piece of advice, it's not a pursuit for the faint hearted or the inexperienced. DIC? No, No, NO!
"Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
|
|
0 |
|
Jud G.Advanced Member Posts:509
01/15/2013 2:43 PM |
|
Posted By ChuckDeaton on 15 Jan 2013 02:45 AM
DIC? No, No, NO!
Chuck, what do you mean by the question and subsequent exclamation?
|
|
0 |
|
LelandAdvanced Member Posts:741
01/15/2013 4:50 PM |
|
definitions from insurance company point of view: DIC- we cover things the the other guys don't cover Excess - we cover the same things the other guys cover. Call us when you go over policy limits.
|
|
0 |
|
Jud G.Advanced Member Posts:509
01/16/2013 11:37 AM |
|
Correct Leland. Additionally, DIC can also double as excess by using the limits of the underlying NFIP policy as the deductible, 'whether the insured has a policy or not'.
This last paraphrase basically infers that the Difference in Conditions policy provisions are indifferent with regard to the underlying NFIP policy.
|
|
0 |
|
ChuckDeatonLife Member Senior Member Posts:1110
01/17/2013 6:54 AM |
|
My suggestion would be that any adjuster, before handing an Excess Flood claim, especially on London paper, go through the process, get properly NFIP licensed to handle large commercial flood then actually handle flood claims, with large commercial as part of the claims mix, this process will take several years, then sort out the E&O issue, Once this steps are complete the adjuster could be qualified to throw his/her hat into the ring. I would suggest an expense budget along with an escrow account for the E & O deductible amount. My E & O deductible is $10,000.00 and the policy has requirements.
"Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
|
|
0 |
|
HuskerCatVeteran Member Posts:762
01/17/2013 11:00 PM |
|
Posted By ChuckDeaton on 17 Jan 2013 06:54 AM
My suggestion would be that any adjuster, before handing an Excess Flood claim, especially on London paper, go through the process, get properly NFIP licensed to handle large commercial flood then actually handle flood claims, with large commercial as part of the claims mix, this process will take several years, then sort out the E&O issue, Once this steps are complete the adjuster could be qualified to throw his/her hat into the ring.
I would suggest an expense budget along with an escrow account for the E & O deductible amount. My E & O deductible is $10,000.00 and the policy has requirements.
Could this be the second coming of Trader? C.D. has deviated off into the world of E&O, and one wonders why. I've seen some of your files, and I might see more...you just don't know it. I have great respect for your knowledge and input, so forgive me for poking a finger at you now and then.
This wasn't a complicated question...and I don't need to be flood certified. I have handled, am handling, large commercial losses. I'm just not flood certified by NFIP. This is not an NFIP policy.
The excess form is simply worded. It covers, limit-wise, what the primary does not cover up to the next limit, but only above their limit to what our limit is. But, it will not cover what the primary does not cover (for instance non-covered property or ACV only).
So, that was my original question. And while, yes...there is a commercial NFIP coverage form on the website; I could not be certain of what my primary coverage was (the standard form, or something else?). The crux of my question was....is the primary adjuster obligated to write up "the whole deal" whether covered or not, in order for the excess policy (me) to determine the amount owed.
As afore posted, the primary carrier (not the individual adjuster, mind you) verbally assured me that the rule is to write up the entire loss item-by-item whether covered or not, and to what degree (RC or ACV, or a combination thereof), regardless of whether they reach their limit. I'm crossing my fingers, for the benefit of our insured.
|
|
0 |
|
LelandAdvanced Member Posts:741
01/18/2013 2:37 AM |
|
If you are the adjuster with an excess claim should you: 1) accept the adjustment of the primary claim as being accurate, since it was paid by the carrier already? or 2) carefully review the adjustment of the primary claim, verifying its accuracy, using your NFIP "specialized knowledge". or 3) adjust the primary claim all over again, writing your own estimate from scratch
|
|
0 |
|
01/18/2013 9:10 AM |
|
WOW !!!! Reading this thread sure will make the Newbies eyes get REAL WIDE OPEN. I'm gonna put this thread away and bring it back in October to show on the big screen with "Halloween" and "The Shining" . That triple treat should scare the He11 outta them !
Give them what they want, when they want it, and how they want it !
|
|
0 |
|
ChuckDeatonLife Member Senior Member Posts:1110
01/18/2013 10:28 PM |
|
Mr. HuskerCat you and I travel in different circles and without going into detail it is virtually impossible for anyone to have seen one of my "files". So I am calling BS on that last statement.
"Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
|
|
0 |
|
HuskerCatVeteran Member Posts:762
01/18/2013 11:54 PM |
|
Posted By Pondman on 18 Jan 2013 09:10 AM
WOW !!!!
Reading this thread sure will make the Newbies eyes get REAL WIDE OPEN. I'm gonna put this thread away and bring it back in October to show on the big screen with "Halloween" and "The Shining" .
That triple treat should scare the He11 outta them !
Pondman...this has just been tame exchanges amongst long-time posters (some of them a bit crabby). If you really want to entertain or scare the jeegeebies (is there really a way to spell that word...might have to check with Larry in OKC) out of newbies, then you need to go back to the archived forums of '04-'06. There's some dandies out there & it was non-stop. Just ask our current moderator, Medulus. REDRUM REDRUM
|
|
0 |
|
HuskerCatVeteran Member Posts:762
01/19/2013 12:06 AM |
|
Posted By Leland on 18 Jan 2013 02:37 AM
If you are the adjuster with an excess claim should you:
1) accept the adjustment of the primary claim as being accurate, since it was paid by the carrier already?
or
2) carefully review the adjustment of the primary claim, verifying its accuracy, using your NFIP "specialized knowledge".
or
3) adjust the primary claim all over again, writing your own estimate from scratch
OK, you pose very good questions...and, I think they were questions.. there wasn't a "?" mark after each; so...
There are other facts of the loss that I have not disclosed, such as a separate independent inspection of the loss. So, yes...the scope is known. It was the specific underlying coverage that was at question.
No longer an issue...and there's no crying allowed on this subject any longer. But, whiners please feel free. Let's see who's first.
|
|
0 |
|
LelandAdvanced Member Posts:741
01/19/2013 8:51 AM |
|
I have to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Deaton gave the idea for the questions I posed, he brought it up first. So I now I will have to add extra credit points to his grade, I suppose.
|
|
0 |
|
MedulusModerator Veteran Member Posts:786
01/21/2013 8:10 AM |
|
I am not an attorney, and I don't even play one on TV. Leland, Combining my theological and my catadjustological (try spelling that word, O man from Worms) hats, the three questions you ask, Leland, are three in one - a veritable trinity of questions. So, should an excess carrier accept the underlying carriers adjustment of the claim or not? And the answer is often "yes", but sometimes "no". This is the mystery of adjusting. The situation Mike, the husker guy, is describing in minimal detail sounds like a "following form" excess policy. And, generally speaking, there are complications inherent in the excess carrier sending out someone to start from scratch on the claim. When this file goes to trial five years from now, I would not want to be the carrier who assessed the loss at a lower figure. That could very well be like drawing a target on one's back. "So, Mr. Claims Examiner, if your form is excess and it "follows form", why did you decide to send out your own adjuster to write a separate estimate which - to no one's surprise - is lower than Company X's estimate....EVEN THOUGH YOUR POLICY SAYS YOU ARE FOLLOWING THEIR FORM?" And- understand that we are in the rarefied air here where only a few adjusters dare to breathe-a decision to send out one's own adjuster on the excess policy would be the exception rather than the rule. And understand further that such a decision would be made with great trepidation and for file specific reasons. Even if this is not a "following form" excess situation, the adjustment of the claim generally falls to the primary carrier. The excess carrier might consider sending out its own adjuster if there is coverage for something (or occasionally exclusion of something) in the excess policy that is not present in the primary policy and, therefore, the primary carrier has ignored the adjustment of that aspect of the claim. But this would be the exception rather than the rule. And so, the bottom line is: Usually the excess carrier is in the position of accepting the work done on behalf of the primary carrier. And occasionally, in a small fraction of cases, an excess carrier will hire their own adjuster to evaluate and adjust the loss. And, I will reiterate what Jud G said about excess versus DIC. There is no dichotomy between the two. Many DIC policies are also excess. And, by way of endorsement, I know Jud Gardner to be an exceptional adjuster because I have reviewed his work and he was the only adjuster I (and therefore the carrier for which I worked) hired to do my work in the Florida panhandle and environs when I was in charge of making such decisions at ICW.
Steve Ebner CPCU AIC AMIM
"With great power comes great responsibility." (Stanley Martin Lieber, Amazing Fantasy # 15 August 1962)
|
|
0 |
|
ChuckDeatonLife Member Senior Member Posts:1110
01/21/2013 10:39 PM |
|
Not to minimize anyone, but if any of you have handled a claim involving a following form that uses an NFIP policy for a base, please hold up your hand and step to the front of the line. Only fools leap in where angels fear to tread.
Oh, and please, blog your experience after you failed to write an estimate and then find that the NFIP adjuster committed actionable fraud against the United State government and you are being mentioned as an accessory. And then try to make an E & O claim.
"Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
|
|
0 |
|
HuskerCatVeteran Member Posts:762
01/21/2013 11:35 PM |
|
Didn't anyone go back and read my initial post? Read between the lines...I'm was just wanting to post a reserve to the file. There aren't intentions otherwise. And, it's more like "go with the leader" instead of "follow the leader", because we are working with a larger limit than the primary. Yeh, my field adjuster looked at the loss...the broker insisted. So, that was my only question. And it will also be the question of the 3rd layer. And this isn't a market share with a dedicated GA, so put that away. I didn't make the initial post all that difficult; just haven't been boots on the ground NFIP, so wanted to know from those "boots". Now, the paranoia sets in, and all the mentions of lawsuits and E&O......??? Not the case at all.
|
|
0 |
|
Jud G.Advanced Member Posts:509
01/24/2013 2:12 PM |
|
I have several active files that use the NFIP policy as a deductible to a DIC policy. With them, there is no other use of the NFIP policy other than allowing them to serve as $500K deductibles. The NFIP forms are absent any common sense and have zero bearing on the provisions and limitations of the language stated within the upper layer DIC forms. The customer base I work with is aware of these emaciated provisions by the Federal Government who feigns generosity. So they pay top dollar to ensure that their precious assets are actually restored to pre-loss condition. With my hand only halfway up Chuck (in addressing the first half of your post), I will calmly assert that one's experience with NFIP is almost irrelevant. The forms I am assigned to render the NFIP forms and my old one-day Flood Certification Card useful only for kindling. I suggested my NFIP experience to my superiors and they greeted me with a snicker as I was told to pull up a chair and listen. In my understanding of your testy comment about fraud and E&O (as they relate to the forms you are handling), I see your point. For problem cases, this point is even a legitimate concern. However, my choice to rewrite the loss as it pertains to the language of the upper layer would not threaten the NFIP adjuster's standing with his E&O carrier. It appears that you have assumed that the NFIP adjuster may have written up too much. I will re-emphasize that they could only be guilty (again, not my call) for writing up too little simply because the NFIP contains limited provisions. The DIC form can come in to provide the missing link for additional funds (excess) or for provisions (risk avoidance) that were limited by the NFIP or both. As for the interests of their E&O carrier, that will be a task only for NFIP reinspectors; not mine. As I say this, I meekly confess that it is the coverage counsel we hire who venture where angels fear to tread. I can only claim that I get to watch them do the real work. Chuck, as you may know, manuscript forms are often scripted with a single customer in mind and seldom duplicate their language from one policy to the next within a single carrier or conglomerate of carriers. Consider Steve's post above and his experience in authoring these forms. The manuscript, DIC forms that provide excess coverage and use the NFIP policy as a base deductible relate to your NFIP, Excess-only forms much like apples and oranges relate to each other. In light of this, I am neither about to concede nor suggest that Mr. Kunze's form (loss) be handled with the same degree of absolutes that you handle yours. Additionally, I will most certainly not disqualify your suggested approach as you address your respective losses since I've not seen the forms you work with. Despite the difference in forms, there are many similarities. If there's one thing to be gained from this thread, then it would be to place heavy emphasis on becoming assumption averse. In doing so, avoid action or comment until you read the policy and confirm carrier or counsel agreement to your interpretation(s). Steve; many thanks for your endorsement. You are too kind. I will gladly admit that in 2009, you were the first to give me that useful primer on the basic purposes of DIC forms. While in San Diego traffic, you pulled over during your work day to avoid hands-free violations, took my call, and gave me some very useful information. That primer enabled me take the first and biggest step of several in becoming prepared for the strange, but exciting claims environment I've found myself in now. Stay safe.
|
|
0 |
|
Jud G.Advanced Member Posts:509
01/24/2013 6:34 PM |
|
Posted By ChuckDeaton on 17 Jan 2013 06:54 AM
My suggestion would be that any adjuster, before handing an Excess Flood claim, especially on London paper, go through the process, get properly NFIP licensed to handle large commercial flood then actually handle flood claims, with large commercial as part of the claims mix, this process will take several years, then sort out the E&O issue, Once this steps are complete the adjuster could be qualified to throw his/her hat into the ring.
In preparing my earlier post, I overlooked this one. The London brokers I work for don't care if you are NFIP certified. I have ample experience writing flood losses for both domestic and overseas carriers (To the NFIP gurus reading this, NO- NFIP is not the only flood player in the U.S. of A.). I don't need a cheesy one (1) day certification to tell someone I can read a policy especially if it their test doesn't provide a decent survey of coverage knowledge.
I got my NFIP card after one (1) year of property experience and it was not under the duress of an emergency situation. I no longer have it since the flood claims I've handled since 2005 have all been non-NFIP, written by someone with common sense, and devoid of the hideous barrage of red tape (I guess the common sense part addresses this item too).
|
|
0 |
|
01/25/2013 8:17 AM |
|
I thought you had to have a special certification to handle commercial or rcbap claims.
|
|
0 |
|
MedulusModerator Veteran Member Posts:786
01/25/2013 8:35 AM |
|
You absolutely do, brarew, when doing work for NFIP. You do not, however, when handling policies that are not part of the National Flood Insurance Program such as EZ Flood or DIC policies that cover flood. They are still not for the faint of heart. Always a good thing, in my opinion, to have the certification. I keep mine current.
Steve Ebner CPCU AIC AMIM
"With great power comes great responsibility." (Stanley Martin Lieber, Amazing Fantasy # 15 August 1962)
|
|
0 |
|
okclarrydVeteran Member Posts:954
01/26/2013 11:12 AM |
|
I really appreciate the way Steve explains everything twice for us slow learners. Thanx again
Larry D Hardin
|
|
0 |
|
ChuckDeatonLife Member Senior Member Posts:1110
01/26/2013 6:24 PM |
|
I really appreciate the double explanations, especially the explanations are made by adjusters who are inexperienced and know just enough to be really dangerous to themselves. Is Robbie Robinson sick, where is he.
"Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
|
|
0 |
|
Jud G.Advanced Member Posts:509
01/30/2013 3:59 PM |
|
Yes, Chuck you said that once already. However, I am content to know that both the vendors and carriers of this niche corner of loss adjusting arena continue to hire me for my services. I invite you to consider how your 'decades of experience' may have surfaced as the bane of your recent comments. Comments that demonstrate your understanding of this forum's topic are much more beneficial than criticizing other posters. Are you aware that we are discussing two different excess forms? Your comments indicate that you have never heard of a DIC form.
|
|
0 |
|
|