| Author |
Message |
Kile Anderson (Kileanderson)
| | Posted on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 10:28 pm: | |
Actually, Jim, the 10 cent wings were in Jamestown, New York. Still close enough to Buffalo for the wings to taste authentic. |
Jim Flynt (Jimflynt)
| | Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2001 - 4:23 pm: | |
Kile, I don't remember the 10 cent wings, but if you're nice, Russ Lott and I will show you the place where we go for All You Can Drink Beer for $6.00 each. (Gotta have something to do on those COLD winter nights).
BTW, the regular meetings of the "Buffalo Church Secretaries Society" happen nightly just across the Peace Bridge over in Fort Erie. You might see us over there as well.
PS: I never had so much fun in Buffalo since the pigs ate my brother.
See you there! |
Kile Anderson (Kileanderson)
| | Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2001 - 10:46 am: | |
Thanks for the info Jim. I found it highly informative. My grandparents have a summer house near Buffalo and yes, Buffalo wings direct from the source are by far the best in the world. Hooters doesn't even have a clue. I haven't been there in a while, but I remember Monday used to be 10 cent wing night. |
Jim Flynt (Jimflynt)
| | Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2001 - 9:57 am: | |
ICE STORM ADJUSTING 101-HOW TO ADJUST LIKE A PRO
Having worked ice storms almost each year, here is what my experience tells me you should expect.
First of all, ice damage in homes and properties is generally a result of "ice dams" which occur when sleet, snow or ice precipitates onto roof tops. After the deposit of precipitation, there is generally a freeze-thaw cycle wherein the melted ice flows to the gutters and then freezes. After a short while, the gutters fill up and over and then freeze, and when the next cycle starts, the melted ice water starts to backflow UP the roof having no other place to go. When this happens, the water goes UNDER the shingles and UNDER the felt paper, and then enters the attics and ceilings causing interior damages.
Generally speaking, there is never any "damage" to the roof from these storms, unless the precipitation is such that from "weight of ice", the roof or a portion thereof collapes. This happened in Buffalo, NY three winters ago due to the unusual amount of snow which fell.
Because there is no roof "damage", the adjuster does not have to inspect the roof. Most adjusters working ice storms don't even bring a ladder. I always do, only because I don't know what storm I may have to go to next before coming home again.
When the melted ice water enters into the home or commercial properties, the water may find its way onto the top of the ceiling sheetrock where it has no way to further gravitate to lower elevations. When this happens, in time the water will soften the drywall board and it may and probably will collapse into a room area. If not, it will generally "bow" the ceiling drywall. MAny times, the best thing to do for this (and the Insured may already have by the time you arrive) is to punch a few nail holes in the ceiling drywall to allow the water to escape.
Water is always going to find it's way downhill, and in doing such, it causes "staining" of the walls, ceilings, carpets, floors and contents.
Remember, even under the HO-3 Policy which is "all risks" coverage for Coverage A & B, that Coverage C is Named Perils coverage, and as such there is no coverage for "contents" due to damage from "ice dams."
The other damages which an adjuster may see is where there is a pipe rupture due to freezing which can cause the escape of a lot of water in a very short time period, thus causing extensive damages to a home or commercial property.
Ice storms generally may cause local power outages, so you may also see claims for freezer food loss and other loss as a result of power outage. Remember that general power outages are not covered for damage unless the power loss is caused by damage to a power line between the street and the residence.
You may also see damages from small (and sometimes even large)fires due to defective heaters, misuse of candles, and "accidental fires." You may also see "smoke damage" from candles and heater "puff backs."
Finally, expect to see some fallen gutters, which will often peel away the fascia and soffits from the risk as well, due to the extra weight of frozen water within the gutters.
All in all, the majority of claims which an adjuster is going to see are going to be the "cosmetic" damges within a few rooms, with most repairs consisting of drywall repair and replacement, painting of walls and ceilings, and the cleaning or replacement of carpets and floor coverings. You may also need to replace insulation in attics or walls at times due to heavy water penetration, although the replacement should not be allowed without a physical inspection of the damaged insulation.
What I love about ice storms, is despite the cold weather in these damage locales, you generally are going to be outside only between your vehicle and the front door of the risk, and if done properly, a scope of damages can be performed relatively quickly, and the file closed quickly as well when the adjuster understands the issues involved in ice damages and the reason for cause of "ice dams."
Due to the nature of damages, your inspections are going to require appointments with the Insureds, so that they may be present to allow entry and for you to explain causation. If the adjuster does not understand the cause of ice dams, THEN he is going to ultimately have to deal with roof inspections and explaining later why there was no roof damage. This can be avoided by having a full understanding of the ice dam cause and being able to explain that to the Insured. A "handout" with a visible diagram I find to be very helpful for the Insured's understanding.
For those adjusters who may handle a commercial claim, remember that there are some significant differences in policy language and coverage than those coverages under homeowner policies. Many of the items which may be covered under a homeowners policy are not covered under the commercial forms.
If you will type in the words "ICE DAMS" on one of the internet search engines, you will find some excellent information as well as diagrams which outline the causes. These also make excellent "handouts" to give to your Insureds who suffer damages during these ice events.
Good Luck, buy some warm clothes, bundle up, and perhaps we'll see you somewhere "up North" in early January. |
Jim Flynt (Jimflynt)
| | Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2001 - 9:35 am: | |
Thought it might be appropriate to revive this topic thread and perhaps re-label it Christmas 2001 Snow/Ice Storm-Buffalo.
BTW, those real Buffalo wings really are the best! |
steve f
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 8:44 pm: | |
I am presently working in Chicago.
Here is the latest info that I have.
Our vendor now has 10 adjusters on this storm and each of us has about an average of 60 claims each.
The claims had been rolling in at about 100 per day since about last Thursday. For whatever reason the claims dropped off significantly today. Hopefully this is a temporary lull in the action. Yesterday and today we were above freezing in the afternoon and a lot of melting was taking place. The next few days will probably tell the tale for our future here. We have also received claims in the Milwaukee area (about 25) and in Indiana (unknown quanity)
They are calling for above freezing temperatures for the next couple of days and the possibility of rain on Sunday. There is still plenty of snow on the ground here and a lot of snow and ice on the roofs (about 1 foot average). I have two detached garage collapses myself.
For now, all we can do is work the claims we have and hope for more work to come in.
Lastly, thanks to Bob McCrorie for his efforts to get as many of his adjusters out as he can after what has been some very lean times for all of us!!! |
Tom Joyce (Tomj)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 3:41 pm: | |
Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma have numerous small claims with cat teams deployed. Problem is the claims are trickling in and hard to get a large volume at once to bring some additional people in. |
mark (Olderthendirt)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 3:34 pm: | |
Have heard of people being sent to Chicago in last 48 hours, anyone hear anything? |
Tom Joyce (Tomj)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 7:16 am: | |
As opposed to sniping at people I try to keep people informed regarding work situations, new vendors, programs. Just try to keep up with your burgers and take a rest a the attempt at sarcasm. |
Chuck Deaton
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 3:41 pm: | |
Arkansas had a major icestorm on 12/13 and again on 12/26. All the major players have cat adjusters in the area. |
Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 7:36 pm: | |
THANK YOU, JIM !!!!
This is just the kind of 'working together' information this website is intended to provide. Wouldn't you say so there Mr Joyce?
Now, let's all get back to nagging and annoying Big Momma Nature, so she can hail and storm all over our heads and roofs! |
JimLakes (Jimlakes)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 5:11 pm: | |
UPDATE!! UPDATE!!
Ladies and Gentleman,
We will try to give you "just the facts" as to the ice dam claims here in the Chicago and surrounding area. Yes, there are claims coming in but nothing like what is being posted and talked about. Most of this is just hype. We have not been above freezing since Dec 4, 2000, which was before the snow came.
However, today it got up to around 40 degrees and is supposed to be in that area tomorrow. Until we actually have a warming trend and/or rain, I do not believe that the claims will happen. I know that some "Cat" companies have been called in for some carriers, but I do not believe that there are as many claims out there, that is being told. I spoke to one of the biggest carriers in the area and they told us that they had only received 600 claims to date.
We know that you "all" are looking for work but the claims are just not there, YET. We would love to be able to put all those to work that have called, but until the claims come we cannot in good faith call you out. As we have stated before we want the claims "in hand" before we ask you to drive across the country. Keep the faith and they will come.
Jim Lakes
National Catastrophe Director
RAC Adjustments, Inc.
866.241.6574 |
Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 11:40 pm: | |
Say Whaaaattt???
How much more positive can one be in calling for Big Momma Nature to pull our wagon out of the Bar Ditch with a storm? We are storm troopers, aint we?
I do confess to having a sarcastic, rapier like wit, but being a stodgy, stuffed shirt? No thank you, that job must go to some one else.
Indeed, I concur that we must all work together, and I should like to buy you one of the Phantoms burgers at the next storm, but again, we'uns gots to have the storm first. |
Kile Anderson (Kileanderson)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 9:41 pm: | |
As I sit here sipping my piping hot mug of Thera-Flu, I can't help but wonder what's going on in Arkansas and Michigan. Are the claims coming in the way they were anticipated? I've kept the battery charged in the trusty cell phone, but it still hasn't rung. Is this the real thing or just another of many false alarms. Anyone have any info? |
Tom Joyce (Tomj)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 8:31 pm: | |
Ghostbuster.
Why can't we all put ourselves into a positive mode in the beginning of the year. I have been working with several adjusters and companies and trying to see where the work is and how it will benifit us. I note that I use my name and try not to be sarcastic in an industry that begs for poor and cheap jokes. However you always seeem to be on the other side of the fence, complaining, not wihtout justification, but not helping. Go figure! Maybe if we could work together instead of bitchin something might happen. Or the other possibly is that you like others like the existing situation? Well probably not the smartest post, but let's see the input. |
Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 7:49 pm: | |
Well, Mr Joyce,
Yeah, let's all pile onto the wagon and have three cheers for our ol' pal Contrarian... but where is the burro that's gonna pull the wagon? And, don't think for a minute we're gonna use my truck! We still need for Big Momma Nature to put the smack down with a hard series of storms to use up the kids first. By the way, have the upper midwest ice storms depleted the ranks of State Farms Natcat crew? |
Contrarian (Contrarian)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 7:38 pm: | |
Tom, what can I say? Once again you were one step ahead of me.
Yes, I am back (as "Contrarian" which I like by the way) and will post from time to time under that nom de plume as well as my real name.
I do intend to concentrate my efforts on CADO to Newbee, policy and insurance education and training. I especially intend to focus on the development of new internet based mediums for the distribution and testing of insurance knowledge as a resource repository for all of our readers and members, as well as other insurance interests.
Let's keep it professional in here and let's use the CADO Forum to educate, communicate, share, and inform so that our reach can extend beyond our grasp.
I'll say one thing: You can never pull one over on my Good Friend Tom Joyce! Thanks for your kind words and the Welcome Back Tom.
By the way, I am now associated full time with RAC and that Greatest Gentleman of Gentlemen Adjusters: Jim Lakes, RAC's National Catastrophe Director.
Jim Flynt |
Tom Joyce (Tomj)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 7:19 pm: | |
Herb,
Agree with you and your handling of claims.
Tomj |
Tom Joyce (Tomj)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 7:17 pm: | |
Ok,
First of all, welcome back Jim Flynt, your attempt to hide did not disguise your postings or conceal your knowledge.
Right now we need every professional adjuster with this new year. Things are happening and I feel that this is going to be a keypoint for us.
I have been approached regarding virtual adjusting, new programs, and further educational advancements available, but it is up to all of us this year to push forward. With Roy, Jim(who is hiding), Dave, Linda and many others I feel this is our year to break out and establish our profession. Can we all get on the same wagon and show the industry what we can do? |
Herb Carver
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 3:17 pm: | |
It appears that it is my turn to agree with you 100%. I also approach every claim under the paradigm of “looking for coverage” even when it does not result in such an outcome. Still, there are additional things to keep in mind.
The investigation of a claim must be prompt, thorough, reasonable, and conducted in good faith, i.e., the insurer (and therefore the adjuster) must consider facts favorable to the insured’s position as well as that of the insurer. Erroneously withholding policy benefits resulting from the failure to investigate a claim thoroughly may constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith. In order to protect the insured’s security, an adjuster cannot reasonably and in good faith deny payments to the insured without thoroughly investigating the foundations for its denial. Furthermore, the adjuster must fully inquire into possible bases that might support the insured’s claim. (I am sure you know where I am going with this) In short, a professional adjuster must understand the policy – its purpose, intent, limitation, application, etc. Settling or denying claims in the claims office or call center before a proper and complete investigation takes place, or creating protocol for what constitutes a credible claim before investigating it, are in direct conflict with the professional duties and responsibilities of an adjuster and inconsistent with the implied covenant of acting in good faith.
As for the prior gracious comments on my previous post, thank you. However, as I am sure that you are all aware, the quality of a posting is most directly attributed to those postings that preceded it. You all had a great topic that inspired me to begin typing and, most importantly, to think. The thanks are all mine. |
Contrarian (Contrarian)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 2:34 pm: | |
I think our job is first and foremost to know the policy, understand how it is applied, and to be aware not only of coverages, but also policy conditions and exclusions.
In a way, it is important that every adjuster look at each loss from the standpoint of both looking for coverages and also looking for exclusions, limiting conditions (sub-limits), and other policy conditions which may limit or deny coverage.
I always approach each claim "looking for coverage" but quite frankly, there are times when there is none. While that may be hard for an insured to accept, it is always more generally appreciated (and accepted) when the insured realizes the adjuster is a professional, knows the policy inside and out, and can explain the policy, policy application, and interpretation to the insured.
It always helps if we understand the underlying reasons behind some of the policy provisions, and this can only be learned from reading and study.
Policies are constantly changing as are the practices within our industry and it behooves each of us to do our best to keep up with those many changes.
It is the adjuster with SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE who will provide SUPERIOR SERVICE to the insured. (That will insure SUPERIOR FINANCIAL REWARDS and ego satisfaction for quality performance to the learned adjuster as well). With greater knowledge of policy, application, and interpretation they are in a much better position to "find" coverage for all insureds than those with only a cursory knowledge (at best) of what the policy says and what the policy means.
As professionals, our obligation is to be fair to both the insurance carriers and the insureds in our role as the party (claims) which delivers on the promises of indemnity made in the insurance contract. |
mark (Olderthendirt)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 1:39 pm: | |
Tom
I have always said that most adjusters I have meet are fair, but I occasionally see people approaching coverage from the wrong side, looking for denial first. There is much that is known but cannot be proven, like in house rewards for most denials. This is wrong but it happens. As a fact I regard Cat Adjusters (generally) as the fairest and most knowledgeable in the industry. While I did not intend to offend, we are not prefect. Sometimes questions are to make us think. |
Tom Joyce (Tomj)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 12:51 pm: | |
Mark,
Your remark is out of line on this forum. I,like others deal with insureds on a professional level and do not find ways not to "pay a claim".
We deal with contracts and adjust accordingly. Many of us have walked away from jobs because we were not allowed to use our knowledge and skills to properly work files. So your remarks are offensive and you have little knowledge of the industry. |
mark (Olderthendirt)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 12:31 pm: | |
Is it the job of the adjuster to find a way to deny the claim or to pay the claim (subject to coverage) |
Contrarian (Contrarian)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 11:40 am: | |
This adjuster would still assert that the policy provisions which Herb mentioned dealing with repair or preventive measures (where reimbursement for such expenses is anticipated) are ONLY triggered when there is "damage" first.
Carriers (by policy provisions) do not pay for:
(1)* REMOVAL OF ICE AND SNOW FROM ROOFING SYSTEMS TO PREVENT DAMAGE (WHERE THERE IS NONE PRE-EXISTING)
(2) removal of trees and branches to prevent their imminent falling
(3) purchase and installation of hurricane shutters to prevent wind damage
(4) purchase and installation of fire suppression systems to minimize damage
(5) retrofitting roofs for ice shield barriers
(6) purchase and installation of gutter heaters to prevent ice dams
(7) purchase and installation of home security systems to prevent burglary
(8) raking of leaves away from a risk to prevent fire
(9) etc., etc., etc. as the list goes on.
The point I am trying to make is that the insured ALWAYS has an obligation to maintain his property and to protect it as best he can, without regard to whether the insurance carrier covers the cost for such or not.
SOMETIMES the costs borne by the insured may be covered for expenditures for MITIGATING damages. But that assumes there is damage in the first place. Without damage, the provisions mentioned by Herb are not triggered and they are not payable.
Further, in those instances where there MAY be reimbursement provided, other issues become applicable: Is/was the cost borne REASONABLE? Was the damage from a COVERED PERIL? Are there policy exclusions which would negate or otherwise exclude coverage?
Suppose for instance that an insured files a claim. When you arrive to scope the loss, the only item which the insured presents for payment is a bill for ice and snow removal and there is no other direct physical loss or damage. I suggest to you in the strongest possible language that in the instant case, there is no coverage whatsoever for the ice and snow removal. NONE. ZILCH. NADA.
Where ice and snow buildup on a flat commercial roof may imperil the roofing system, other questions would come into play beyond the obvious. What were the design loads for the roof given it's location (higher requirements for northern climates) and was the roof properly installed. Should a flat commercial roof collapse due to weight of ice and snow, subrogation and possible coverage denial issues immediately should be considered because the existing weight from the present snow and ice on the roof may well be within the building code requirements at the time of construction and/or roof load capabilities; AND there may be a design, material or installation defect.
While there may be "deflection" in a 50 foot roof span, and there may be ice and snow present on the roof, the REAL CAUSE of the deflection may well be design, engineering, and installation defects rather than the ice and snow. And in that instance, there is NO COVERAGE for either the ice/snow removal or and damage.
To get into a discussion about commercial claims and the attendent weight of ice/snow issues, their effect on flat roofs, and the implications of design, material and installation defects is to open up even another topic and class beyond the present discourse.
As I guess we all are trying to say here, there are never any "easy" answers, and the BEST ADJUSTERS will find the BEST ANSWERS in reading and understanding the policy and being aware of customary policy intrepretations.
It never hurts to look at additional resource material such as FC&S, PF&M, Silver Plume, Rough Notes, National Underwriter, and applicable case law. |
R.D. Hood (Dave)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 11:30 am: | |
November/December Cold Breaks all Records
Ice Damage Claims Mount for Member Companies
January 8, 2001
PLRB member companies have reported record numbers of claims filed for ice dam property
loss during the past week. A report issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) confirmed the obvious, November and December were extreme-weather
months.
America experienced the coldest November and December since the federal government began
maintaining weather records in 1895, according to the NOAA report. Measuring data from 11,000
sited in the 48-contiguous states, researchers found the average nationwide temperature was
33.8° Fahrenheit. That bested the old record, set in 1898, of 34.2°.
The change to Siberian weather was abrupt. It followed ten-months of a record-warmth created in
part by the weather pattern known as La Niña. Plus it also followed a long-trend warming pattern.
NOAA research indicates that 2000 will have been the 13th warmest year on record, although the
research is not yet completed.
The November-December cold snap followed the end of La Niña. Immediately following La
Niña was a weather pattern known at the North Atlantic Oscillation. That pushed the jet stream
into Canada and then dipped it back into the Northern Plains, which provided a path of Arctic air to
blast all the way to the Gulf Coast.
The jet stream also provided guidance for winter storms that produced record freezing rain
in the South and very heavy snow in the North. Northern tier weather stations reported record
amounts of snowfall in December. In Arkansas, where successive freezing rain events broke
thousands of power lines on Christmas Day and again a week later, the utility crews completed
restoration Sunday, January 7, 2001.
The gyrating temperatures in the North, combined with huge amounts of snow, resulted in
structural damage to buildings as ice dams backed melting snow up and forced it into warmer
spaces. Building collapsed from the weight of ice and snow have also been reported.
For additional information on ice dams and coverage assistance, PLRB member company
employees may click here.
Return to PLRB Home Page |
mark (Olderthendirt)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 10:28 am: | |
Well said. I assumed that any claim we are assigned has some damage (no claims do happen)whether it's the tree or the ice dam. Maybe we should be asking whether they removed the ice before or after they noticed the damage. |
Contrarian (Contrarian)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 8:58 am: | |
Herb, you are right, what a wonderful topic and I must say, what a wonderful response you have posted. I agree with you 100%.
You are right, this would make a most informative seminar or educational session, and I would recommend that you would appear to be the perfect teacher/seminar leader. You know what you are doing! Nice to know we have a new "pro" poster on CADO. |
Herb Carver
| | Posted on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 6:30 pm: | |
After reviewing the last several posts, it appears that the central issues have gotten somewhat askew. There is no question that direct physical damage is a requirement to a covered loss - in this case (I am assuming this is a homeowners claim) to Coverage A - Dwelling. However, there are Additional Coverages to the homeowners policy that may not always (literally) have this requirement. One such Additional Coverage is entitled Reasonable Repairs.
By way of a brief history, the 1987 HO-350 endorsement to the ISO homeowners policy forms was the initial instrument to change the policy language from "necessary repairs" to "necessary measures." The 1991 ISO homeowners policy forms incorporates this language, providing coverage situations similar to the dilemma that is presented here. For example, exposing a leaking buried water line on the insured's property would require excavating dirt to get to the water line. Coverage for the cost of excavation to get to the water line is not specifically addressed in the homeowners forms, although the cost of tearing out part of a building when the leak is indoors would be included in the opens perils coverage provided by Coverage A. In either case, however, the cost of gaining access to broken pipes constitutes part of the cost of repairs to prevent further damage (the leakage of water owned by the insured) and thus would be covered as a reasonable repair if coverage were not otherwise addressed. Under the current language of the homeowners policy forms, digging down to get to a leaking pipe is covered as a necessary measure to prevent further damage, but the actual repair of the pipe is covered only if the pipe is considered covered property and the damage to the pipe was caused by a covered peril.
The intent of this coverage is to allow the insured to be reimbursed for measures that must be taken quickly to protect the property from further damage - key word, further. The critical determination to be made here is whether the presence of an ice dam is, in itself, considered damage; or if interior damage must be present; or the weight of ice, snow or sleet is a contributing peril to the loss. Naturally, I will leave that for your own consideration in order to remain on topic. Nonetheless, if a condition exists that can be considered as damage to covered property by a covered peril, the reasonable measures taken by an insured to prevent further loss are covered. As such, allowances could most certainly be made to remove ice and snow from a roof of an insured facing a similar situation without creating ex gratia actions.
The tree analogy is appropriately accurate. Following posts, however, seem to focus on the issue of the tree causing damage and confuse the Additional Coverage of Reasonable Repairs with that of Debris Removal. This is perhaps the greatest example of comparing apples to oranges. Nonetheless, the cost of removing a felled tree from a damaged structure is covered as a component of the repair costs of the structure subject to that structure's limit of liability. The provisions for tree debris removal take over from there subject to its own limit of liability.
As for inaction leading to voidance of the claim (this is not exactly the strongest of policy defenses, by the way), take precautions that you are not attempting to enforce a Condition of the policy. Conditions and Coverages are also apples and oranges.
Finally, it does appear that some additional education on this topic would be useful and enjoyable. While there are many books, seminars, and courses that address this topic, the best place to begin your interpretation of insurance coverages is to read the policy. Basing your interpretations on what has been allowed in field operations in the past, regardless of geography, is not only a poor place to begin your education, it provides no solid basis for pursuing the knowledge necessary to be considered a professional.
What a wonderful topic! I am proud to report that, after occasionally following postings for several years now, I have never had the inclination to visit regularly or pay any dues to become a member of the CADO community - until reading these latest posts. Thanks to you all, I am now a full-fledged member and look forward to reading and exploring more. |
Tom Toll (Tom)
| | Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 11:31 pm: | |
Paying for removal of limbs from a structure without first discovering physical damage, would be like paying an insured for raking the dead leaves from around his house to prevent possible fire. No damage, no payment for removal. That is a contract proviso and should be adhered to under all circumstances. Its simple, just read the policy contract guys and gals. |
Contrarian (Contrarian)
| | Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 9:03 am: | |
Mark once again you are off the mark.
Number one: It is the courts that will be the ultimate ruler of policy interpretation.
Number two: Some of the Bozos who are storm managers know about as much about policy and policy interpretation as my dog knows about rocket science and brain surgery.
Number three: We are no longer adjusters but merely appraisers when we leave the policy interpretation to storm managers. It is our job and our role AS ADJUSTERS to read, know, remember, understand, and apply the policy to loss situations and circumstances.
Finally, what I have described here in the previous posts is the RIGHT way to do it based on what the policy SAYS. Anyone (including some storm manager or carrier Bozos) may do it otherwise, but they are then operating outside of what the policy language says and the customary interpretations of most carriers (and courts as well).
What I was suggesting was the "safe way" for our CADO readers to approach this situation should they encounter it. You are never wrong (even if you are later "overruled") by following what the policy says.
And in this case, it is very clear. There is NO gray area here. Without damages FIRST there is NO snow and/or ice removal coverage possible. (Unless possibly your loss is in Quebec!)
Perhaps someone needs to set up a class on this topic to help some of you "get it" and understand what the policy says and what the policy means. |
Tom Joyce (Tomj)
| | Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 7:11 am: | |
Regarding the ice and snow on roofs, there is no coverage under the policy for removal and when a company makes allowances for such it opens a dangerous door. It should be treated like the tree limb, unless on the structure causing damage, no coverage. The insured has a duty to protect the property and take resonable steps to prevent damages from occurring or the policy may be voided. The company has no duty to prevent future occurances |
mark (Olderthendirt)
| | Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 1:38 am: | |
The policy is our bible, but only the storm manager (high priest) shall interpret the words of the gods. |
Contrarian (Contrarian)
| | Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 12:17 am: | |
I should have said in my post that there was ONE EXCEPTION to the RULE: Canada. Or to be more precise: Quebec (which as I understand it is not a part of Canada).
While a carrier may (under certain circumstances) make an "ex gratia" payment to an insured for issues or items not covered by the policy, it is important that we as adjusters understand what the policy says. That is our job: to understand the policy. Ex gratia payments to insureds are beyond the realm of our obligation and authority.
It is easy to post responses which suggest that every issue, item or provision is ambiguous and subject to carrier interpretation. The KEY to PROFESSIONALISM is understanding the policy language and application despite ersatz carrier treatment outside the bounds of policy language or meaning (hence ex gratia).
I stand by my comments as far as the ISO Forms are concerned. What I posted is what the policy says (and what it means). READ IT.
Despite what Dave Hood says, it really is quite simple. Follow what the policy says. The policy is our bible. |
R.D. Hood (Dave)
| | Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 11:53 pm: | |
Oh if it were only so simple.
In Canada in '98, the carriers denied this for a bit, until the threat of collapse woke them up. How about a commercial building with a 50' span, 14" of ice on the roof and 6" of roof deflection in the center? (they paid for removal)
Yes, most of the carriers will deny the cost of removal, unless there is proof that the structure has already sustained a direct physical loss, (such as wet,leaking ceilings, or walls, windows that will not open, cracked rafters or joists etc.),which can be attributed to the existing conditions.
EVERY loss is different, and the directions of the carrier will be the guide, regardless of what the insured or you think. It is always, however,your responsibility to provide accurate information and your recommendation to the carrier for their decision.
"Caveat Emptor" |
Contrarian (Contrarian)
| | Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 10:34 pm: | |
Mark, you have to have DIRECT PHYSICAL DAMAGE LOSS FIRST. If the insured undertakes to remove or expend money for ice and snow removal antecedent to (interior water) damage it is not covered pursuant to the policy provisions. There is almost NEVER any ice or snow damage to the roof system which is why I emphasize interior damages.
DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS triggers possible coverage. Without direct physical damage first, there is NO possible coverage trigger.
As an example, if the insured was experiencing ice dam damage on the interior of the front of the house ONLY, the policy would not provide for coverage for ice and/or snow removal from the rear of the house.
A tree or branch ON the house is not the same thing as a tree or branch HANGING over the house, despite the imminence of the fall of the tree or branch. The policy coverages for each of those situations is quite different just as it is dependent on whether there is damage at the time the insured has the snow and ice removed. One situation is covered and the other is not; dependent entirely on whether there is direct physical loss damage or not.
A tree ON the dwelling generally causes DAMAGE whereas ice and/or snow ON a dwelling MAY/OR MAY NOT cause damage. Again, let's not confuse issues by comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same.
READ the policy and UNDERSTAND it BEFORE you talk to your storm manager so you don't come across as a hick from the sticks! |
mark (Olderthendirt)
| | Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 10:01 pm: | |
Removal of ice can be considered a reasonable expense to prevent further damage. Same as removing a tree that is on the dwelling. Varies from company to company and storm to storm. Always a good idea to get instructions from the storm manager. |
Contrarian (Contrarian)
| | Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 7:27 pm: | |
Steve, there would be no policy provisions which would extend coverage for ice and snow removal without direct physical damage.
Think of it another way, the insurance carriers would also not pay to cover the costs for gutter electrical heating cable installation or ice shield retrofitting. The principle for snow removal where there is no direct physical damage is similar if not identical in nature as these examples.
We constantly see homeowners who cannot understand why the carrier will not pay for removal of leaning trees or hanging branches but will pay for any damage caused by their fall subject to a named peril such as wind.
In some instances where ice dams have already started interior water staining or ceiling collapse, some carriers will pay a portion of any costs for roof snow removal, but I find this is the exception more than the rule.
Hope this helps. |
steve f
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 6:51 pm: | |
Some of our adjusters are running into an issue with ice dams. The question is: Is there coverage for removal of the ice and snow off of the roof. Assume that there is no damage to the roof. The intial response in no coverage as there is no direct physical damage to the roof.
However, there have been some dicussions referring to coverage provided under the conditions of the policy providing coverage for reasonable repairs to prevent further damage. Could the removal of ice and snow be considered a repair? Or, is it simply maintainence?
This is going to be a major issue as we can expect a good load of claims coming in as temperatures are rising for the next couple of days in the mid-west. |
steve f
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 7:41 pm: | |
Thanks for the report Dave.
Lets hear from any adjusters who get deployed. |
steveF
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 11:23 pm: | |
Many adjusters want to know what causes ice damming. Here is a link to some good info:
www.thortools.com/roofexperts/icedam.html |
R.D. Hood (Dave)
| | Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2000 - 11:58 pm: | |
Winter Keeps Grip on U.S.; New Storm Arrives
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Reuters) - A winter storm blamed for at least
37 deaths kept an icy grip on the U.S. heartland on Thursday even
as another frigid blast rumbled down the Great Plains from
Canada.
A thick coat of ice stretching from New Mexico to Arkansas
created a massive traffic jam in Texas and left hundreds of
thousands of people without power as the effects of the
Christmas storm lingered.
The U.S. Midwest was hit with high winds and blowing snow on
Thursday as a fast-moving "Alberta Clipper" storm dropped down
from the Arctic and drew a bead on the U.S. east coast. The
blizzard-like conditions forced Northwest Airlines to cancel dozens
of flights at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
Weather forecasters said the storm was expected to dump up to
a foot of snow on the Eastern Seaboard this weekend after
sweeping across the Great Lakes region.
In the south, officials said 425,000 people were still without
electricity on Thursday because of ice-damaged power lines and
that many could remain in the dark for at least another week.
Entergy Corp., which had 174,000 customers in Arkansas without
electricity, said it was sending in 8,000 repair workers to restore
power.
"The whole state is crippled, with only a few exceptions. It could
be Jan. 6 before everyone in our system is restored and that
assumes no more damage," said Entergy spokesman James
Thompson.
The ice storm combined with snows of up to 20 inches in some
places. It turned highways into skating rinks and led to numerous
storm-related deaths, officials said.
The death toll of 37 included at least 22 who died on Texas
highways as the storm crossed the state, said Texas Department
of Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger.
In Oklahoma, two of the storm victims included one boy sledding
near a highway who slid into the path of a truck and another who
fell through thin ice on a rural creek, officials said.
A stretch of Interstate Highway 20 east of Abilene, Texas, turned
into a 20-mile traffic nightmare when trucks crashed during a
heavy snowstorm on Wednesday evening and blocked the
roadway.
A thousand vehicles were stranded on the road overnight and their
occupants taken into nearby churches and stores for shelter until
the jam finally cleared on Thursday afternoon.
"The people in Texas have been excellent. I've had a nice day, but
I want to get the hell out of here," said Scott Fairbanks, a driver
who got stuck in the mess while en route from California to
Connecticut.
The highway havoc extended all the way up to Nebraska, where
police said a Greyhound bus overturned on icy Interstate 80 near
the town of Grand Island. Twenty-eight people were injured, none
critically, they said.
The southern ice storm turned wet as its moved east, dumping up
to four inches of rain in Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
In the ice-stricken areas, forecasters expected no more
precipitation until Sunday, but said temperatures would remain
cold enough to keep the ice around a while longer.
"The ice storm is officially over as of this morning, but several cold
air masses will be moving in tonight and tomorrow, so we're not
looking for a big thaw for the next couple of days," said John
Lewis, a National Weather Service meteorologist in Little Rock.
Brenda Scurlock, a spokeswoman for the emergency
management office in Texarkana, which straddles the
Texas-Arkansas line, said the thaw cannot come too soon.
The city was paralyzed by ice that knocked power lines into
streets and left residents without electricity and water. In the
darkness, looters struck jewelry and convenience stores, which
prompted officials to impose a nighttime curfew.
On Thursday, power and order were being restored.
"We think -- we pray -- the worst is over," Scurlock said. |
R.D. Hood (Dave)
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 11:44 am: | |
Wednesday, Dec. 27, 2000
Some 89,000 Still Without Power After Ice Storm
NEW YORK (Reuters) - More than 89,000 residents of east
Texas, Arkansas and northwest Louisiana remained without
electricity on Wednesday after an ice storm battered the
region on Christmas Day, a spokesman for AEP-Southwestern
Electric Power Co. said.
The hardest hit towns were New Boston and Dekalb in Texas
and Texarkana on the Texas-Arkansas border, where about
36,000 customers have been in the dark since Monday night,
AEP-SWEPCO company spokesman Scott McCloud told
Reuters.
At the peak of the outage, Tuesday night at about 5 p.m. CST,
94,000 customers were without power, McCloud said.
"We hope to make some progress today. We finally had the
freezing rain stop. We need to get those transmission lines
rebuilt in Arkansas," McCloud said.
"Fifty two transmission lines locked out, that's the main
cause, and we can't get power into the cities," he added.
The storm was preceded by an ice storm on December 13 that
plagued the entire Southeast with numerous power outages.
McCloud said 1,100 employees including tree crews and line
crews were now dedicated to storm recovery and that
number would continue to go up, but restoration could take
up to two weeks in some areas.
With more sleet and snow possible in the region tonight,
McCloud said much of the work could not be finished until the
storm system moved out of the region on Thursday.
Weather Services Corp. (WSC) said temperatures in the
Southeast would range 8-15 degrees Fahrenheit below normal
Wednesday, warming slightly to 3-8 below on Thursday and
dipping back to 5-10 below Friday and Saturday.
Freezing rain will remain in some areas at least through early
Thursday.
Winter storm warnings and weather advisories remained in
effect throughout the Texas Panhandle and much of the
Southeast today.
According to some reports, the storm knocked out power to
nearly a half-million homes and businesses and stranded
holiday travelers throughout the region.
The weather caused numerous accidents and was responsible
for nine traffic deaths in Arkansas.
AEP-SWEPCO serves more than 426,000 customers in
northwest Louisiana, northeast Texas and western Arkansas.
It is an operating company of Columbus, Ohio-based AEP
which owns and operates more than 38,000 megawatts of
generating capacity, providing retail electricity to more than
nine million customers worldwide. |
R.D. Hood (Dave)
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 11:38 am: | |
Wednesday, Dec. 27, 2000
Fierce Winter Storm Ices Over American Heartland
DALLAS (Reuters) - A fierce winter storm iced over the U.S.
heartland, prompting travel warnings across the region and
leaving hundreds of thousands without power.
Up to a foot of snow and two inches of ice covered parts of
Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana as the cold wave
moved eastward across the southern Great Plains.
Highways, schools and airports shut down Tuesday because
of the treacherous conditions, which were blamed for at least
two traffic deaths in Oklahoma.
In New Mexico, where the storm brewed up on Christmas
Day, police said four people died in weather-related
accidents on Monday.
American Airlines, apologizing for the disruption on one of
the year's busiest travel days, said it canceled 738 flights, or
60 percent of its capacity at its main hub at Dallas-Fort
Worth Airport. More cancellations were likely, the carrier
said.
"It's about as bad as it gets for travel. We expect it to
continue and conditions may get worse before we get any
improvement," said meteorologist David Andra at the National
Weather Service office in Norman, Oklahoma.
With temperatures in the 20s in much of the region and a
steady freezing rain or snow falling, a thick layer of ice was
building on streets, trees and bridges.
The Oklahoma Department of Public Safety warned people
from traveling because of "slick and hazardous" road
conditions in all but the southeastern corner of the state.
Utility companies said at least 250,000 people in the region
had no electricity, primarily because of icy tree branches
falling on power lines.
Many outages occurred in the same areas that lost power for
several days during an ice storm two weeks ago.
James Thompson, a spokesman for Entergy Inc., said the
utility company had 4,000 service employees on the job or at
the ready as the icy buildup continued.
"One thing we're having to fight is that road conditions are so
bad it makes it doubly difficult to get repair crews where
they need to be," he said.
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told CNN that 20 counties in
the state had been declared disaster areas and that some
homes had no power, water or telephone service. "They've
literally been blasted by the ice back into the primitive ages,"
he said.
AIRPORTS CLOSED
The airports in Oklahoma City, Little Rock, Arkansas, and
Shreveport, Louisiana, were closed, officials said.
In Dallas, heavy rains were expected to turn to ice later in
the day, but a spokesman for Dallas-Fort Worth Airport said
the airport was still open.
American Airlines issued massive cancellations because of the
fear the worsening weather would leave thousands of
passengers stranded in Dallas.
"We recognize that any flight cancellation is an
inconvenience, but feel it is much better for passengers to
remain where they are rather to fly into potentially icy and
severe conditions," said American vice president Tim Doke in
a statement.
Delta Airlines said the weather also forced it cancel a
"significant number" of flights.
Unseasonable cold had much of North America in its grip on
Tuesday. In Toronto, authorities issued an "extreme cold
warning" as temperatures were expected to dip to -1
Fahrenheit on Tuesday night.
In Chicago, temperatures plunged to 12 degrees Fahrenheit
and snow flurries slowed air and road traffic at the city's
two airports, O'Hare International and Midway, which
expected to see 250,000 passengers on Tuesday.
A flight attendant on one Chicago-bound flight announced
that the plane's toilet plumbing was frozen and asked
passengers to "hold it until we arrive."
In California, the problem was fire, not ice, as 600 acres near
a wealthy Los Angeles suburb that is home to several
celebrities were charred by a blaze fueled by 60 mph winds.
The fire threatened a housing development that is home to
film stars, including Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. |
|
