| Author |
Message |
Clayton Carr
Member
Username: Clayton
Post Number: 80
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 11:43 am: | |
Mold Litigation - found this moderately interesting tidbit while looking for something else.
www.healthyrooms.com/mold_litigation.htm |
Roy Cupps
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 149
Registered: 1-1997
| | Posted on Monday, July 15, 2002 - 1:24 pm: | |
The reason for the page overlaps is because of Jim's post he has a line in his message and since the line "****" does not have any breaks the table trys to expand to display it which causes it extend past the margins. I will fix the post.
CatAdjuster.org An Adjuster to Adjuster Community
|
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 307
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, July 15, 2002 - 12:47 pm: | |
Alan, me wee munchkin, this is not exactly a white collar type of toiling. There ain't no ties, lunch tends to be a brown bagger, and solitude is ones stock in trade. My radio is locked onto the left end of the dial where the classical music stations congregate because I cannot abide any more raucous car dealership commercials or obnoxious deejays. But...that's just me.
If sweating for a living is your fate, doing property underwriting inspections can be interesting. You'll need to contact an outfit that does them. A start might be to use a search engine and explore 'underwriting inspections' and go from there. Or, call some carrier and ask an underwriter what outfit they use and backtrack to their personnel office. Or, even the yellow pages can sometimes help.
That's how I did it. There is no glory like in storm trooping, but you keep on the periphery of the game. As one of the few in this business whose entire career has been dedicated to the industry, that is significant to me. Oh...and there ain't no mold to worry about neither. |
alan jackson
Registered User
Username: Ajackson
Post Number: 122
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, July 15, 2002 - 11:07 am: | |
Ghost:
Where do I sign up for this kinda gig? |
Todd Summers
Registered User
Username: T4summ
Post Number: 12
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 15, 2002 - 10:12 am: | |
Ghost, the page overlaps on both margins for me also. |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 305
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 12:31 pm: | |
Ya know, Clayton, it ain't so bad...and the numbers do tend to stack up. The name of this game is quantity, not quality. Averaging 40 inspections a day is par for course. Having automated to a digital camera and completing the report on line has reduced expenses from $28.00/day for film, developing, and mailing to $0.00/day after factoring out the camera and setup costs.
So, at $10.00/report x 40 reports/day = I'll let you run and get the calculator and do the math. Less gas costs of about $5.00-$7.00/day and batteries about once every couple of weeks leave a respectful little net. And, it keeps me more or less in touch with our chosen profession when I ain't on the road where I truly belong!
P.S. Why does this page overlap on both margins? Am I doing something wrong...as usual? |
Clayton Carr
Member
Username: Clayton
Post Number: 71
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 12:26 am: | |
My God Ghost, say it isn't so! A ten spot for a drive by, with all you have to do to get it on someones desk? We'll have to swap stories on inspection work and fees some day. I hope at least the weather is nice and there are some pleasant sites around the pool when you take the rear photo.
But, this is just another example of I really don't know where the money has gone. I only worked for two great American carriers in my first incarnation in claims. First at a small service office that became a decent size branch from the late 60's to 70's. By the time there was 40 people in the branch in a city with 300,000 people and a fairly small territory - there was a loss control department in the branch of four; the same proportionately accross the country augmented of course with a H/O L/C department. Then in the late 70's to mid 80's at another large carrier in a regional office - there was an L/C department of seven. L/C ruled underwriting back then. If Joe inspector didn't like any part of the risk or perhaps the recommendations were not complied with - the account was toast. Of course this lead to outside firms picking up the slack or specialty or remote risk inspections. But, where has this segment of the carrier gone. When I got out on my own, there was all kinds of this work. I had underwriting managers tell me in the early 90's that they were cutting their L/C outsource work budget back to 3 or 4% of gross written premium - and they no longer had L/C staff. Now, it's tar & feathers and no performance bonus if the L/C cost against u/w reaches 1% or more. As you say, it is the law of large numbers.
I was always amazed though sitting at large loss meetings, where u/w's are at their best with hindsight, reviewing the cost of a large casualty claim including the thousands spent on experts or the same for a large fire or bad injury - and wondering out loud as the u/w's sat there and had the nerve to question the high claims expense costs - that what if you had spent a couple of hundred dollars to do an inspection and find out the furnace in the house was old and unserviced, or the electrical was only 60 amps, or the commercial cooking system in a restaurant was poorly installed and had no grease extraction system, etc etc.
It just seems so obvious to me, but it just doesn't happen much any more. |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 304
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 11:46 pm: | |
That's right, Clayton! A loss prevented is better than subrogation any day. BUT... do the carrier honchos believe this? Not very much, at best. Have you noticed how little they pay for underwriting inspections? What they want is a quick peek for little dough. To use an analogy, it's like going to a peep show with only one quarter. Not much thrill for the money spent.
In our case, on residential Risks, for less than $15.00 an inspector in his own vehicle drives to a Risk, takes a front and rear photo, fills out a VERY brief form and goes on to the next one. Oh, I forgot to mention, the actual inspector is getting 2/3 of the $15.00. Yep, for a ten-spot it's balls-to-wall all day long, less all the associated expenses such as gas, film, photo developing, mailing expenses, etc, etc, etc.
Do the carriers ever fork over some real money for a real close look at a Risk? Yes, on commercial and high value residential Risks. But, that market is pretty well sewn up.
It's all about the Laws of Large Numbers. If the underwriters and actuaries run their numbers and don't see a need for a close look at the book of business, they rely on the odds, historical trends, and then try to devine the future by consulting with TV's Miss Cleo and her tarot cards. |
Clayton Carr
Member
Username: Clayton
Post Number: 70
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 10:49 pm: | |
Hi Gil, I hope you find a place in the claims world; if that is where your heart leads you.
Your suggestion regarding the pre-sale inspection reports getting to the insurers just won't happen and for many reasons. Let me just lay out a simple math reason. The figures are general averages, everybody can plug in their own specifics.
Take your average dwelling (fair size) and its' premium- up here $1000 will get you a good policy on a dwelling with about a $250K replacement cost.
Now head down the road which leads to net dollars in the carriers jeans. First, take off 20% for agent commish (-$200). Then any insurer would wet themselves if they could ever again achieve an overall book of 60% loss & loss expense ratio (i.e. -$600); in fact they would grin till it hurt if they could get back to 70% but I'll stick with my generous figure. For those without the calculator handy, there is now $200 left. All kinds of O/H and "other" expenses, general average is about 18%. So, take another $180. off. Gil, the carrier at the end of a fabulous year now has $20 left of your $1000. premium.
Sounds great, but we haven't put our hand out yet for our booty should the losses require an I/A.
To get to your point, part of what you are referring to that should be done involves loss control work. Work that should be done before a policy is issued after the completed application is in. Loss control work, no different than competent I/A work, pays dividends. But those dividends are so intangible, they cann't be seen on a spreadsheet. But the invested dollar in those "dividends" bounces off the page as a dollar that can be sliced thinner.
It just won't happen Gil - until - someone realizes the "prevention" i.e investment to learn about the risk they are going to issue an annual policy for is cheaper than the "cure". |
Gil C. Newton
Registered User
Username: Newt
Post Number: 4
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 8:18 pm: | |
What does Texas require a wood destroying organism report on real estate sales? They must require one before the lender will fork over the money. Wouldn't it be a hoot if the insurance companies investigated some of the claims and found out the mold existed before the policy was written. The one initiating the report are supposed to graph their findings and list all fungi,termites and rot. This should include previous infestations.
The lender would have a copy of this report on file or be in deep trouble....Just a thought.
I do not believe the problem would stop the but some folks might be chasing their tails.
|
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 291
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 4:41 pm: | |
Here is an email message received from Larry Rogak, Editor of the Rogak Report, and one of the top insurance defense attorney's in New York.
The article about mold at the World Trade Center is worth your time reading.
***************************
Among pollution and environmental hazards facing insurers, the up-and-coming thing is mold. With lead paint suits becoming almost passe` due to the rapid abatement, the trial lawyers need a new angle, and mold is the subject of their attention these days. The American Trial Lawyers Association even has a promotional campaign called "Mold Is Gold," selling lawyers on mold litigation like it was vacation timeshares back in the 1980s. Our law firm has already seen the vanguard of the coming wave of mold lawsuits, and as is typical of many environmental claims, it is based largely on speculation and pseudo-science (in fact, only one species of mold is even remotely suspected of causing illness in humans). But check out this eye-catching article from yesterday's New York Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-05-08/News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-150188.asp?last6days=1 |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 269
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 11:36 am: | |
Tom thanks for the link to an excellent article.
From data presented on the Texas Department of Insurance website, one can see quickly the effects of what Mike Vallante has said in the article you recommend.
According to the Texas DOI, the AVERAGE homeowner in Corpus Christi is paying an AVERAGE of $520.66 per year in general premium cost for paid mold claims. In Austin the cost in premium is $153.10 and in Houston it is $129.29. This portion of the homeowners premium cost what EACH and EVERY homeowner in Corpus Christi (or Austin and Houston) is paying for his portion of allocated actual mold paid claims (whether the homeowner has his own claim or not).
Further, the # of MOLD CLAIMS per thousand homeowners rises from .06 in El Paso and .72 in Denton to a high of 13.20 claims per thousand in Corpus Christi.
Corpus Christi percentage claims paid cost for mold is 537.2% higher than the Texas state average.
In less than two years, the number of estimated mold claims in Texas has risen from 883 per quarter to now well over 5,722 in the 2nd quarter of 2001 (the latest data available) and the total cost of mold paid claims (per quarter) has now risen from $9,147,542 in the first quarter of 2000 to $77,761,577 in the second quarter of 2001.
Total mold payouts for just 6 quarters in Texas is now estimated at more than $276 million dollars.
The question remains how long the good citizens of Denton and El Paso and Laredo will continue to send in their ever escalating insurance premiums to carriers in order to SUBSIDIZE this feeding frenzy of hysteria at the public troughs of fraud, greed and irrationality?
In Texas, the circus continues............ |
Tom Joyce
Registered User
Username: Tjoyce
Post Number: 4
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 28, 2002 - 10:51 am: | |
Those out there handling mold claims might want to review an article posted in the Houston Chronicle this date.
To access go to HoustonChronicle.com--http://www.HoustonChronicle.com
Section: Viewpoints, Outlook
Or;
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/editorial/outlook/1383212
Enjoy |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 260
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 10:18 am: | |
I think it's time to hear from our pal, that upstanding denizen of Dixie, the 'Bama boy, Alan Jackson.
Could it be that lawyers driving Jaguars are now being sued by their fellow sharks as they have more apparent assets than some schmuck adjuster driving around in an old septic tank truck? How do the barristers out there protect their piles o'cash? Incorporation? Accounts in the Caymans? Leasing and renting rather than owning?
Inqiuring minds want to know? |
Chuck Deaton
Registered User
Username: Chuckdeaton
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 8:56 am: | |
Ocaisionally I have mixed it up with an attorney or in one suit, an individual, whose purpose is not to win per se, but to hammer, punish the defendant, the issue until the defendant decides to pay rather than continue fighting and paying the price for fighting. Years ago a suit over 22 dollars worth of parking tickets went to the 8th circuit twice and legal fees approached $100,000.
The issue, to my mind, really isn't assets, most in the US don't really have attachable assets,but the disruption caused by having to defend. Stopping work, or loosing work to travel back and forth to depositions, hearings and testifying.
Should you decide to hide assets don't wait until suit papers are served, dig that hole in the yard today.
|
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 265
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 8:39 am: | |
Memo to Ghost: The duty to defend under an insurance policy is not limited necessarily by the policy limits of that policy.
While you might find it surprising, the duty to defend is unlimited in scope and they can't stop defending just because policy limits have been reached in some situations. |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 259
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 7:45 am: | |
That's true. The lawyers do have paid professional root hogs trained to dig up assets.
But...what if you don't have 'assets'? Or, more specifically, those assets are placed into legal vehicles such as trusts, offshore accounts, cash buried in the back yard, or you live in a rent house? Where are the attachable assets?
Can one be 'suit proof' by having no detectable assets?
Is having an E&O policy a benefit to the vendor and/or carrier? Does not your $1.00 or $1,000,000 or $10,000,000 policy serve to dilute the effects on their far DEEPER pockets?
I concede the the benefit in an E&O policy for the legal representation, but that only applies to the limit of the policy amount. As such, a legal representation policy makes more sense for this given scenario.
C'mon guys, reload and take some more shots! And one more thing, how can you guys stay up so late making forum entries? Don't you ever sleep? |
John Durham
Member
Username: Johnd
Post Number: 64
Registered: 9-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 27, 2002 - 12:37 am: | |
Ghost: Some things come to mind. Attorneys are currently "piercing the corporate veil" on an almost daily basis. Second, could they not possibly seek a "disgorgement action" and grab up all those nice assets, including the septic tank truck, that you have worked so hard for over these last 72 years. Heck, they might even go after your first born.
|
Chuck Deaton
Registered User
Username: Chuckdeaton
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 11:15 pm: | |
It seems timely to point out that when you are named in a suit and the papers are properly served you, as a named defendant, have two options, 1. Answer the suit and 2. don't answer the suit. Generally speaking 1. requires the services of a lawyer and 2. requires the services of a lawyer. With 1. you have some control, not a lot of control, but a little and with 2. you elected to loose before you started. 2. is called being in default and in short order a judge will issue a default judgement and the opposing attorney will start to look for, discover and attach assets, your assets, things that you worked your whole life to have and to hold. This whole procedure will go on while you are attempting to earn enough money to finance the rudiments of life.
If you have insurance your insurance company will pick up the defense, hire an attorney that is exprerienced in the type of defense needed and will handle the defense. This whole procedure will go on while you are attempting to earn enough money to finance the rudiments of life.
In a perfect world everyone would subscribe to the same code of ethics and everyones actions would be perfect. However, this is the "real" world. |
Chuck Deaton
Registered User
Username: Chuckdeaton
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 10:55 pm: | |
Risk management takes many forms. Going bare, deductibles, self insured retentions, group policies, layered coverage. The key is to make an informed decision. I choose not to work Texas mold claims because of my personal situation and because of the coverage and climate surrounding the mold frenzy in Texas.
Anyone who has handled large files in litigation can relate amazing stories of time and money spent. And time and money wasted in travel time, depositions and court appearances. |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 264
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 9:49 pm: | |
PS: When it comes to liability (E&O) insurance, what you are (or should be) buying is not the amount of the policy limits, but the duty by the insurer to defend.
|
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 263
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 9:42 pm: | |
Amen Ghostbuster. Amen.
Well said Old Chap.
My sentiments exactly. |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 258
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 9:39 pm: | |
To elucidate a bit further...
The title of this thread is, Mold, the PROS of the CONS. That is to say, The Professionals of the CON game. It's a CON game...
When I think of the supreme effort by the best in our industry doing the best they can with pure hearts, clean minds, and the best of motives and some arrogant lawyer casting foul aspertions on them in the courtroom, all to gain a massive judgement, causes me to stop and rethink the way this game is played.
Responsibility for ones actions is one thing, but it's not like we ground the Insured under the tires of our trucks. (Tho, I can think of several fine Insureds that do deserve it.) To me, this whole topic of mold is one great CON JOB. While I have the greatest respect for our bretheren financially benefiting from the mold wars, I have absolutely no sympathy for the Insureds, contractors, and the rest of this flim-flammery. |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 257
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 9:31 pm: | |
To elucidate a bit further...
The title of this thread is, Mold, the PROS of the CONS. That is to say, The Professionals of the CON game. It's a CON game...
When I think of the supreme effort by the best in our industry doing the best they can with pure hearts, clean minds, and the best of motives and some arrogant lawyer casting foul aspertions on them in the courtroom, all to gain a massive judgement, causes me to stop and rethink the way this game is played.
Responsibility for ones actions is one thing, but it's not like we ground the Insured under the tires of our trucks. (Tho, I can think of several fine Insureds that do deserve it.) To me, this whole topic of mold is one great CON JOB. While I have the greatest respect for our bretheren financially benefiting from the mold wars, I have absolutely no sympathy for the Insureds, contractors, and the rest. |
Five Daily
Registered User
Username: Kitchenista
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 8:43 pm: | |
I see what you are saying about E&O Ghostbuster. My father is a truck driver and carries high limits of liability all on the fear he will kill a surgeon with 10 kids. Of course, if he gets sued, they would sue for the max his insurance would pay and never see the rest. So, he might as well carry a lower amount of liabilty because no matter what, once the insurance covg runs out, there's nothing left to get.
Of course, it would seem that some amount of covg should be carried because you could have an E&O claim that was too much for you to shoulder but not necessarily in the millions. |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 256
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 8:32 pm: | |
I'm a gonna play the Devil's advocate here and let my fellow clubhouse pals shoot my broad beam full of rock salt with your double barrels.
This comes under the heading, 'Ya can't squeeze blood out of a turnip'.
Like all of us, I too, have carried E&O, even when I could not afford it. But let's ponder this angle. If one was to run naked out there handling mold files, or any other loss for that matter, and one has placed all his property in a trust, would it matter if he was sued? What would there be to lose? WHERE IS THE BLOOD TO BE SQUEEZED FROM THE TURNIP?
Are we, in fact, just playing into the hands of the plaintiffs lawyers and their system, and the entire liability insurance system? While working a subro desk, if some poor yokel had no assets, his file was closed. Monthly payment plans at $25/mon? On a combined PD and liability claim of $50,000? No way, that file was closed and forgotten.
My point is, if one was to pre-set himself up in such a manner as an indigent, why would we need to have E&O?
I've got more theories in the oven, so go ahead and blast away. I'll even bend over to give you an aiming point...
HEY! I heard that! It is NOT as broad as a barn door! |
Dale Strain
Registered User
Username: Catmandale
Post Number: 9
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 1:56 pm: | |
Mr Hood,
I'm very grateful that photo is not a scratch 'n sniff!
Dale |
R D Hood
Registered User
Username: Old_dog
Post Number: 13
Registered: 1-1997
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 12:14 pm: | |
Denials can be problems........
On 4/24/2002, inspected a loss of 04/23/02 in a dwelling with a DP-3 and no sewer/drain backup endorsement.
Waste water overflowed from a washing machine standpipe in the basement of a multi family row house. Depositing raw sewage and many gallons of water throughout the basement.
Insured pumped out the basement, called in a "cleaning company" to remove the mess.
Clean up was NOT done correctly, no tear out of drywall and wood studs, no dehumidifiers installed, no air movers used, remaining contents not removed,and no evidence of a germicide present (olfactory senses).
Bottom line, claim was denied of course, AND the report was written in RED that the letter of denial from the carrier to the insured should elucidate the propensity for the possible presence of mold growth and the recomendations for all required remediation be taken. The carrier still has a liability coverage, if the tenant were to choose that path of action, due to the failure of the insured to act.
These claims will grow like weeds this year, and no matter what kind of water loss you encounter, CYA as has been stated.
With regard to E&O, as one friend stated, "You can never have enough, no matter what you have". I have to agree. The deepest pockets are those that get reached into first.
Perhaps we should require some imdemnification from the IA companies and/or the carriers prior to working these claims. We are exposing ourselves to health threating conditions , (some on a daily basis), and the potential for financial ruination IF we were to be named in a suit and lost, not to mention the cost of the defense.
Please check your E&O, make sure the defense costs are a part of the policy, make sure there is no GAP in coverages, and that it is first dollar as Chuck stated.
Think of it like this: You are on a five story slate roof, it is a 12/12 slope and you have no rope and harness in use.( That in and of itself is a really dumb thing to do). It starts raining and you want to get off the roof as quickly as possible, what are your options?
Sometimes we have to use examples that hit closer to home, this is one......................
Please be aware, be careful and cover your collective ASSets.
This is an example of the "Cleaned Area" ?????????
    |
John Mcmennamy
Registered User
Username: Johnnymc
Post Number: 8
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 10:01 am: | |
As the Honorable Tom Toll and others have stated.
Document, document, document..............(CYA)
I have been on storms and advised to do this or that by a supervisor or Team Leader. I always document this in my files. Sometimes the supervisor or Team Leader does not want to see their name or recomendation in the file and will ask that the log be rewritten (red flag). This does not happen often, but it does happen. If it bothers the supervisor or Team Leader to have their name in the file, somethings wrong and you could pay for it. Document every thing that happens with the file. I know it may be a hassle, but this may save you heart aches and trouble down the line. CYA. I garranty the vender and the carrier will cover theirs. This is just good business practice on your part.
This is just my oppinion, others may have different oppinions. It does not mean any party is right or wrong, it's just our oppinion. Thank goodness for Roy and CADO for letting us express them.
Work safe, and I hope everyone gets called out shortly.
Johnny Mac |
Tom Toll
Registered User
Username: Tom
Post Number: 82
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 8:12 am: | |
Chuck says he does not work mold claims, however, if Chuck, and the rest of us work any claim whatsoever involving moisture and the saturation of moisture into a home, we are working potential mold claims. If we do not scope correctly and allow to remove the potential mold maker, we are in deep doo doo if a mold appears later. Hail claims, broken water pipes, hurricane, tornadoes are all potential mold makers. Now here is what bothers me! What if we allow to remove the area of saturation and the insured does not perform or does not hire a tradesman to remove that potential mold maker, are we and could we be held responsible. We as IA's cannot and should not recommend contractors or tradesmen. This can be done by the companies we represent, but not us. Needless to say, we must inform the carriers of the possible threat and ask them how they wish to have the problem resolved, IN WRITING. Of the 152 claims we have handled in the past 4 1/2 weeks, a number of them presented potential mold. The scope included to remove that potential. That information is in notes to files and that information was included in the final report to the carrier. Notes to files are absolutely essential henceforth, due to the greed of the general public, and their representatives. Be careful and precise in this moldy world. |
Chuck Deaton
Registered User
Username: Chuckdeaton
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 12:22 am: | |
Viewed in the light of the Ballard case, no 10 million first dollar is not enough. |
Chuck Deaton
Registered User
Username: Chuckdeaton
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 12:20 am: | |
I am not handling mold claims nor do I intend to, but it seems to me that those who are working as 1099 contractors thru a vendor are taking a risk. I would not be comfortable depending on a vendor to provide my E & O coverage. Again this is a case of "know before you go" but how many of us are going to ask a vendor to provide documentation of E & O coverage and how many vendors are going to provide it.
I too enjoyed Art Boyle's email and repartee, conversations on the telephone and such, but the cold truth is that I handled flood claims for Art, Sun and Royal Alliance paid Art, but Art did not pay me. Stretch this senario a little, would I want Art's assurance that he carried E & O and that that I was afforded coverage.
My thought is that where the water is deep the sharks are large and hungry. Millions of dollars are flowing from insurance companies to insureds on the recommendation of members of our profession. Members setting themselves out to be licensed professionals. Eventually a carrier is going to attempt to recoup some of that money and adusters and vendors are an avenue.
Due diligence is the term that comes to mind.
Also, no body loves my money the way I love my money, not my mama, not my preacher, not my accountant. |
Dale Strain
Registered User
Username: Catmandale
Post Number: 8
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 7:43 pm: | |
Regarding potential liability of the adjuster, I think the question has to be asked, to who(m?) is the duty owed?
Specifically, who is the client of the IA. Most likely it would be the carrier or vendor, rather than the insured to which we owe a fiduciary duty.
I'll be interested to see if the insured can reach the IA. Obviously, we still need to act professionally and competently in reporting everything we see and can contemplate. |
John Durham
Registered User
Username: Johnd
Post Number: 56
Registered: 9-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 3:29 pm: | |
PS:
Chuck, even if a licensed adjuster handled the file properly, many attorneys will attempt to "paint" the adjuster with the "brush of unreliablilty" and try and make the adjuster the problem. |
John Durham
Registered User
Username: Johnd
Post Number: 55
Registered: 9-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 3:26 pm: | |
Chuck:
Do you think $5 Mil is enough??? Many adjusters who are now accepting mold files are asking for, and receiving vendor paid E&O of $10 Mil. Personally, this is what I would REQUIRE to accept any mold claims in this litigation oriented endeavor. If you worked all your life to buy your family a home and the other accrutriments of comfort, $10 Mil. is the MINIMUM. IMHO
|
Chuck Deaton
Registered User
Username: Chuckdeaton
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 11:39 pm: | |
An addendum to Tom Toll's comments on E & O. Your coverage should be 5 million first dollar.
|
Chuck Deaton
Registered User
Username: Chuckdeaton
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 11:36 pm: | |
An addendum to Tom Toll's comments on E & O. Your coverage should be 5 million first dollar.
|
Chuck Deaton
Registered User
Username: Chuckdeaton
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 11:29 pm: | |
There is another angle to the mold situation and that is professional liablity. What is going to happen when the giants in this industry wake up and realize that all of the mishandled files were mishandled by licensed, insured professional adjusters?
At some point I expect that most mold files will be reviewed by a contractor looking for recoveries from licensed professionals who failed to do the job in a professional manner. Potential recovery opportunities exist and involve vendors and adjusters.
An undocumented file and the lack of E & O is eventually going to tarnish the gold discovered by some adjusters. |
mike stephenson
Registered User
Username: Photoadjuster
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 10:06 am: | |
I just wanted to reinforce what Jim wrote below about documenting your files.
You should consider your activity notes, to be a letter to the jury ! |
Andrew K. Sloane
Registered User
Username: Claimsranger
Post Number: 13
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 8:30 am: | |
Closed a 1-1/2 year old claim yesterday with a phone call to the PH to see if evreything had been paid. Total cost? $59,784.46 on $62,000 of Cov. A! Amazing what a mold claim can do for a policy holder here in TEXAS! Jim F., This was a little more than a kitchen and probably could have been resolved w/o this "remediation" if the original Adjuster had been a little more astute and timely in his/her handling of the "WATER LOSS" that caused the ensuing mold.Go figure! I inherited the thing from the 3rd Adjuster. Whew, these gangrenious alligators of a claim area B..ch to get closed, but they can and do with a little effort. The file was 6-1/2 inches thick!! Anyhow, back to the trenches.! |
John Durham
Registered User
Username: Johnd
Post Number: 54
Registered: 9-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 8:31 pm: | |
What Jim Lakes said is correct! By DOCUMENT, he means everything. You may be reduced to writing a 10 page essay report on your word processor to attach to the claim. You just cannot send too much information back with a mold claim. If you cover your A** with good documentation, then the legal eagles will exclude you when they file suit against the carrier. This is a lesson that will, unfortunately, be learned the hard way by some adjusters.
IMPORTANT: If you are not sure WHAT to document, DO NOT ACCEPT ANY MOLD CLAIMS..
IMHO |
JimLakes
Registered User
Username: Jimlakes
Post Number: 75
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 11:21 am: | |
To Tom Toll,
Sorry, I missed the CNN (Communist News Network) talking about mold. Darn, I must have been watching FOX.
Duh, I wonder why it doesn't surprise me that they would be one of the leading “Fear Mongers” that I spoke of in my article?
The new suit filed in CA by Ed McMahon, and I have read the suit papers, appears to put a lot of the blame on the IA. As you state, and as I have stated many times, we as independents must document our files on each and every WATER LOSS. If the “mold” issue is not addressed and later becomes an issue, I agree, you better have your E&O in line. The carrier will come back to the IA and the IA will come to you, IF YOU DON’T DOCUMENT YOUR FILE.
Remember the 3 C’s. Cause, Coverage, Cost, and you can’t go wrong.
(Message edited by jimlakes on April 23, 2002)
Jim Lakes, RPA
|
Tom Toll
Registered User
Username: Tom
Post Number: 81
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 11:30 pm: | |
I am in hopes that all saw the CNN report this evening regarding mold and the problem it is creating for the insurance industry. It went on to suggest that it is lethal and highly destructive to those with a respriatory problem. They zoomed in on a bathtub bottom with black mold on it. They then zoomed in on a shower ceiling with black mold on it. Now, what I am trying to figure out is this, why aren't these people cleaning their bathrooms instead of blaming the insurance companies for thier woes. I realize mold is a problem and a very real problem, but the media is sensationalizing something that has been here before humanity existed. We don't need the damn press creating problems for us or the insurance companies. I have concern for my fellow adjusters who might be included in litigation for failure to resolve the mold in a home. It has happened already and is going to happen at a greater rate as time moves on. If you are working mold claims, make darn sure you have at least 5M in E&O or you may get fried. If working losses and you suspect there may be a mold issue, notify the company immediately, in writing. Be sure and get direction from that company as to how they wish to resolve the issue, in writing. Don't get hung out to dry. If you are not sure that mold is an issue, get another adjuster out there that knows what they are doing and collaborate with them. Run a tight ship. The PA's and attorneys are after every nickel they can get and they don't care where it come from. This is my opinion and I have many. |
Andrew K. Sloane
Registered User
Username: Claimsranger
Post Number: 12
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 8:53 am: | |
JIM, the homeowners are not making a killing, just getting a new kitchen maybe because of poor housekeeping as far as I can tell from working these puppies, ask Linda, she is right on the money and so is her cuz.! We are paying for stuff that would truly boggle your mind. At least we are until 2004 when the TEXAS HOW policy becomes effective for all policy holders once they have renewed. It will take that long. On the same note, PH's have 1 chance to purchase the optional endorsement for mold as an ensuing loss and 1 chance only!! That was the word I got from mgmnt yesterday. More on this later once I have a copy of the new policy I'll e-mail you Jim F. with it attached if you will e-mail me with where you want it sent to. |
John Mcmennamy
Registered User
Username: Johnnymc
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 12:09 am: | |
And that's coming from some one who knows.
Right Cus.
Linda is right. Mold is not covered and is excluded.
It is an ensuing loss from a covered peril that the carries are paying for.
Ghost is right also. The insured is not the one making money form this loss. The remediation companies, contractors and lawyers are.
The remediation companies are scaring the insured into thinking they are going to die or become sick and never recover.
The contractors are loving the business.
The lawyers are telling the insured how bad the adjuster and carrier are.
The insured sees a black spot and thinks it's the Blob. The Blob is going to consume everything in sight including the children. The insured turns in a claim and doesn't hear from the insurance company for a week or two. The insured is mad and beleaves the lawyer and remediation company. 60 minutes come s in and you get your 15 minutes of fame.
Were do we fit into the picture? Contact the insured, inspect promply and spend time with the insured to listen to their concerns. Do the best job you can and do it right. Be the best adjuster you can be. Then go home, hug the wife and kids, pet the dog or cat and have a drink ( tea, water or what ever). Tomorrow is a new day.
Work safe.
Johnny Mac |
Linda Asberry
Moderator
Username: Linda
Post Number: 23
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 7:47 pm: | |
 To make a strong point--mold is specifically excluded on a Texas HO-B as a "cause of loss" but what most of you are not realizing is that "mold claims" are not being handled with MOLD being the COL but rather as ensuing loss from WATER damage which is covered. You must have covered water damage as the COL or it is denied. Excessive moisture in a bathroom can certainly cause mold to grow everywhere but excessive moisture in the atmosphere is excluded.
To make another strong point--there have been no large settlements on any of the "mold" claim without one minute detail--none of the claims were settled because there was mold in the risk but from improper claim handling. We can all blame someone else for the claim blowing up and sometimes there is a underlying factor the adjuster has no control over but ultimately it rests on our shoulders to do exemplry claim handling or toss and turn all night hoping we don't walk into WWIII in the morning. Admittedly, there are some you just can't win no matter what you do and sometimes a higher power vetoes your decision, but you can still rest easy knowing you did the very best you could.
Keep learning, keep reading, and remember it's not the mold that MAY make you ill but the mycotoxins it CAN produce. Stay safe. |
mark salmon
Registered User
Username: Olderthendirt
Post Number: 160
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 5:57 pm: | |
Dan keep smilen and posting. In this business if you don't develop a thick skin, you will loose to much sleep to make real money. The gentle love taps exchanged around here are nothing to those from a claims manager, vendor (supervisor) Insured DOI contractor etc. Also remember, you never have to take insult from anyone who has to turn sideways to get their belt buckle through the door. |
John Mcmennamy
Registered User
Username: Johnnymc
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 12:29 pm: | |
Dan don't take anything personal. The comments are educational and in some cases are sarcastic. Sometimes you remember a policy clause or what ever because someone yelled or was sarcastic in their answer. Everyone in the forum has been a little sarcastic or disageeable at one time or another. As you grow older, I remember when they planted seeds for telephone post, you realize you can let a cooment bother you or just read between the lines and collect the information you were looking for. We need oppinions, different views and a little sarcasism now and then to make our idle minds think and respond. Jim, Ghost, John and several others on this site have and have shared their wealth of knowledge with us chosen few. Feel good that they eccept you into their fold by responding to your post. They are just having fun and mean no harm. They get you thinking and responding. By responding back to you they accept you into their fold.
I don't have to defend them, they can defend thierselfs.
I'm just greatful we have such people to share their knowledge and guide as many people as they have in the right direction, me included.
With all due respect to you and all the great adjusters that have posted and shared their knowledge on CADO I THANK YOU.
Johnny Mac |
Jim Flynt
Member
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 250
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 11:58 am: | |
Hey Dan, Ghost does that to me too....... |
Dan Meler
Registered User
Username: Danmeler
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 11:38 am: | |
Ghost,
Nearly every time I post something one of you good old boys takes it upon yourselves to correct, "educate", or offer a seemingly sarcastic comment. Maybe I'm misinturpreting the whole thing, but if not:
HINT, uhhh, cut it out. It's a piss poor way to keep a new member coming back to an otherwise GREAT website. |
John Mcmennamy
Registered User
Username: Johnnymc
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 10:47 am: | |
 I agree with both Jim and Ghost without seeming like I'm riding the fence to avoid controversy.
Jim as in all claims there are some people who see the settlement as vacation money and then are mad when they are denied damages on their next claim. Do I think some people are taking advantage, like the guy who creates hail damage with golf balls in a sock, sure. I also beleave that most people are honest and just want whats due under the guide lines set by the carrier. I agree mold has been around sense the beginning of time and is less damgerous than a toothless Chihuahua to most people. Some people probably get sick from mold, hell some people get sick from thinking about doing their taxes.
Like Ghost, I represent both the carrier and insured. I do not take the claim to be an assault on our industry, it's no different than a hail claim. If the carriers are covering the loss, it's my responcablity to be fare to both parties as set forth under the guide lines. The insured is not the enemy, nor is the carrier.
My license is in my name and I will not do anything that would cause me to loose that privledge of having one of the best jobs you can have, nor would you or Ghost. I follow the guide line set forth by the policy or the carrier who decided they were going to cover the loss, as you do. I have not met you or Ghost, although I look foreward to it. I do know from a good source, I won't mention Linda's name, that both of you are very knowledgable and great examples of our industry.
I also know that each of us see the claim and scope differently, with the same results hopefully.
Bottom line, it's just another claim. Handle it as you would any other, with all your integrity and knowledge. We don't make the rules, we follow them.
Thank god for Roy and CADO as we can express our oppinions.
This is just my oppinion to posts by some very knowledgable and good adjusters. Thanks for listening.
Johnny Mac |
Ghostbuster
Member
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 254
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 3:27 pm: | |
Yeah Jim, all you say is correct, but are you seeing the picture for what it is? It has become not a matter of right or wrong, but rather a case of how much. And, the how much benefits the contractors and claim representatives on both side of the fence.
Tho the Insured is paid for non salvageable contents at replacement cost, those items still must be paid for when replaced. Thus, no big profit here. Yeah, they get the house fixed and all smelling new & pretty, but the cash does not land in their bank account. I do not see mold as lottery win for the Insureds. The big prize goes elsewhere.
I learned long ago and faraway to leave my sense of right and wrong at home when going out to work for insurance companies claims departments. Like the Nazis said at Nuremburg, "I was just following orders and here's the memo to prove it!" |
D Wong Whey
Registered User
Username: Dwongwhey
Post Number: 107
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 2:03 pm: | |
John Thanks for giving new meaning to the phrase "forked tongue" and for providing an answer to causation. Gee you would think some folks would know better.......... |
John Durham
Registered User
Username: Johnd
Post Number: 53
Registered: 9-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 1:47 pm: | |
Dan Meler:
The clever attorney already has. After the earthquake in Idaho (circa 1982) a couple in Bozeman, Montana suffered a large (1.5") crack in their basement floor from shifting. After having their claim denied (no EQ coverage) the nice adjuster man told them; "Everything else is just fine." Well 5 or 6 years passed with radon gas leaking into their home and they both became sick from exposure. They filed suit claiming the insurance company failed to warn them of the danger, while a verdict was not rendered, the insurance company did settle out of court for just less than $500K. Now almost every home sold in the state of Montana (which has heavy radon) must have a radon test before closing. Radon gas remediation companies are throughout the entire state and doing a "decent" business. Thanks legalman. Ever wonder why you see all the "warning labels" on everything you purchase today?
PS: ***WARNING*** Do not attempt to clean floppy disk read/write heads with your tongue. Serious injury could occur. |
Gordon Mathison
Registered User
Username: Lansur
Post Number: 7
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 12:53 pm: | |
Thanks Jim for the reminder. In the great white north, there are few policies that do not generally exclude mold. Is it a standard in Texas et al. to cover mold or is this just on "broad forms"? |
Jim Flynt
Member
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 249
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 11:31 am: | |
You guys are missing my point on radon gas.
Gas exposures, contaminates and pollution of course are specifically excluded as a covered causes of loss under most policies. (Mold [as a covered cause of loss] is too if anyone would bother to read the policies but that is a whole 'nother story).
My point about radon gas was to contrast a KNOWN widespread condition which is KNOWN and PROVEN to kill THOUSANDS of American citizens each year with those who are crying and whining about mold AS IF it was hazardous to one's health yet is not recognized by EPA and the CDC as a KNOWN and PROVEN killer.
The irony lies in the arguments of the mold infected demanding the safety of their homes and the health of insured inhabitants, while failing to protect themselves from a KNOWN health hazard. Obviously, since the radon gas causation is more specifically excluded by policy, their own failure to test and mitigate for radon gas presence and exposure outlines and emphasizes their own hypocrisy about concern for health, and goes to prove they are only jumping on the mold issue in pursuit of riches tantamount to winning the Big Game Lottery.
I was not trying to uncover some new threat to health nor to argue coverage for an uncovered event which is not sudden and accidental by it's very nature and which upon examination is a widespread health threat in virtually every part of the United States.
As I said:
Radon gas KILLS.
Mold allows insureds to make a KILLING.
And in my book, it just 'ain't' right. |
mark salmon
Registered User
Username: Olderthendirt
Post Number: 159
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 10:56 am: | |
But is that a sudden and accidental situation? |
Ghostbuster
Member
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 251
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 7:46 am: | |
Uhhh, here's a hint. In Texas, since we don't have extended spells of cold weather, we don't have basements. We tend to build on top of the ground, thus no exposure to accumulated radon gas.
Typically, our most nasty, poisonous gas comes from a plate of pinto beans. |
Dan Meler
Registered User
Username: Danmeler
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 11:01 pm: | |
Just as soon as a clever attorney convinces a (well, uh, dimwitted is the word that comes to mind) jury to force an insurance carrier to cough up the first RADON dollar.............well, Katie bar the door! Because all those people out there who "only want what's coming to me" will be looking for Gold in their basements!! |
Jim Flynt
Member
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 244
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 12:57 pm: | |
According to the EPA and CDC, in 2001, radon gas escaping from below homes in America caused the deaths of an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 people here in the United States.
Simple inexpensive testing could have revealed the presence of this gas thus precipitating remediation for this dangerous problem.
Since so many self interested parties want to fan the flames of hysteria for toxic mold (which by the way, did not cause ANY known deaths in the US in 2001) as a deadly and dangerous condition, I wonder how many of the mold infested homeowners in Texas and other mold ripe states have had their homes tested and treated for radon gas?
Are these homeowners REALLY concerned about their HEALTH and the SAFETY of their homes OR is this mold crisis and toxic mold hysteria just another word for fraud and a subterfuge for something else?
It is a Fact that Radon gas kills.
It is a Fact that Mold provides some homeowners with a way to make a killing.
(Message edited by jimflynt on April 18, 2002) |
|
