| Author |
Message |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 285
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 2:03 pm: | |
Congratulations and a big Texas thank you for showing your true colors. Tim, all us lil' ol' independent adjusters out here ARE adjusting firms. That we sub-contract to a larger adjusting firm means we each get to share in the cost of doing business and share responsibilities and liabilities. That includes your contrivance of a hold harmless agreement.
I don't know about the rest of you guys and dolls out there, but I find life much easier when I know exactly who the enemy is. Does this mean we have another contestant for the Worst Vendor of the Month Award? |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 321
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 12:05 pm: | |
Ghost and others, here is the FWUA's latest response (as delivered by Tim Wagner) to "hold harmless agreements" which was posted this morning on the CADO Bulletin Board.
****************************************************************************************************
"Mr. Flynt:
You comment was that independent adjusters were required to sign a hold harmless agreement. I stand by my answer. As even you may be aware, the hold harmless agreement applies to the firms themselves, and not only to mold but as of last year we have required hold harmless agreements in the contracts we have with the firms for all wind claims, which is standard in the business, if you would care to research that as well. Again, once more for everyone-indpendent adjusters ARE NOT required to sign a hold harmless, but the firms who do business with FWUA, MOLD OR NOT, are, as with every other firm, required to sign. Ask a specific question, you get a specific answer."
|
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 284
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 11:03 pm: | |
With regard to the rhubarb on the bulletin board about FWUA, let us state the obvious.
For FWUA to try and shift liability onto the back of the independent adjuster. (who is a one horse shop of his/her own), can only have the effect of running off adjusters, leaving FWUA with files but no workers. Will I drive half way across the continent to be responsible for trailer-trash Barbie's and Bubba's mold growing in their bathroom? Not this lil' red hen.
I recall the mold that could mowed with a lawnmower, growing on the walls and ceilings in Miami during Andrew ten years ago. I shudder to think what would happen today in that scenario. Instead of namby-pamby games, FWUA and the rest of the herd of carriers need to immediately rewrite the all the policies to eliminate any kind of coverage for mold.
We all know that hurricane season is apon us as of June 1. The door is now open for the creative coniving of the P.A. industry, legal industry, and contracting industry to manipulate the system. Here in Texas, the tit has already been run thru the wringer on mold. The rest of the states are next and it's not a pretty sight.
I strongly suggest you carrier honchos grease the skids into the respective state DOI's and take quick action BEFORE the next hurricane party begins. You really can't afford not to. |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 320
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 6:28 pm: | |
Memo to my good friend Andrew Sloane:
Andy I am remiss for not posting an apology to you earlier in my conclusion that you had posted a "rumor" involving a "mold endorsement" in California.
As we all know by now, I was terribly off base with my knowledge and facts and you were entirely correct with yours.
I had looked extensively at the California Legislature website a couple of weeks ago, and thought that I had read all of the pending bills which involve or affect insurance. I was wrong and I apologize here publicly to you as well as the readers of the CADO audience.
My Thanks to you as well as to Linda Asberry for bringing California Senate Bill 1763 to the attention of CADO readers and the insurance industry. It is nice to know that there is always a safety net of other readers and posters like you and Linda here who will keep the rest of us straight when our facts and opinions sometimes go astray or lead us to erroneous conclusions.
While we might disagree with the 'significance' of this legislation and whether it really says anything new, it bears watching in the California Assembly ('House') to see how that body deals with it, and should it be enacted into law, to continue to monitor it as it is surely challenged in the courts.
Again, you were right, and I was wrong. I and the larger CADO audience owe you for being on top of the facts!
I'll try to measure my words more carefully in the future and be a little more flexible in my thinking when others see things through different filters.
Andy, take care and work safely my friend. |
JimLakes
Registered User
Username: Jimlakes
Post Number: 78
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, June 03, 2002 - 11:02 am: | |
To All,
Not being a lawyer or one in the legislature I cannot speak with authority on the subject at hand. I have, however, been involved in many cases and political scenarios related to these two professions, have held two city positions, and believe that Jim F. is certainly on the right track.
Although, I think that we are all missing the real point here. As I have stated before and will again, it is not for us to determine whether this age old problem will or will not be covered on the insurance policy. That remains to be seen. Some do and some don’t.
It is our job to report, document, and find the cause of the loss and the amount of damages, when dealing with this type loss. Moreover, the REAL POINT here is, “What does it cost to remediate the damage and was the loss properly mitigated by the insured?” Every bit of this entire subject would be a mute point, IF, all remediation costs were $75.00. However, they are into the thousands of dollars and rising. Are we as adjusters paying the proper amount to remediate a mold claim? The answer to this question is an unquestionable and resounding NO. Some will say that, “But we don’t set the prices for these losses.” I contend that we do. How many times does some inexperienced adjuster, set the trend on a hail storm, when they look at a roof and say, “Well it looks like hail, so it must be hail,” so they give them a new roof that starts the ball rolling in that neighborhood? We all know it happens and that makes it very difficult for the good adjuster that knows hail, to deny a roof when their loss is right next door to the one that got the new roof.
The same thing is true with this mold issue. The remediation company says it will take X amount to do the repairs and no one questions it. The carriers don’t want to take a stand on the issue for fear of the two worst words in insurance and the poor adjuster can’t take a stand for fear the carriers will not back them up.
As I stated in the article that I wrote on this tread several months ago, WE as adjusters have no say as to how the carriers handle their mold claims, but we are the ones that must document the loss to PYA. Don’t become the adjuster of record in a case such as Ballard or McMahon, (Bad Faith not Mold.) The courts, the legislatures, and the powers that be at the carrier level will make the final determination as to coverage and nothing we do can change that final act, so stay tuned.
Jim Lakes, RPA
|
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 283
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, June 01, 2002 - 6:44 pm: | |
We ARE playing nice.
Let's review, our current line of thought in this thread deals with the various state legislatures swinging one way or the other to mandate that mold is a covered loss, and whether such policy changes can be legislated, RIGHT?
(The crowd in the grandstand rises and roars it's agreement.)
Now, I seem to recall that once apon a time in the Great State of New Mexico, that an Insured of Big Red was a state senator and that he took particular umbrage at having his replacement cost withheld till repairs were done. He proceeded to get the mob riled up and they passed into being some legislation wherein the RCC was paid up front and PCA's were thrown out by the truck load. This, of course, caused much consternation amongst the tried and true traditionalists, until they quickly figured out that this was one less form to fill out and explain downstream and up.
At that point it became a happy day!
So, can elected bodies affect the way our particular sun rises and sets each day? You bet! As adjusters, we must always be ready to 'adjust' to the winds of change so that we are blown with the wind into the money pot and not blown out of it. Whether that pot is labeled mold, hail, wind, earthquake, flood, or any of the rest of the covered perils, as long as it is filled with a greenback casserole, don't forget your spoon.
|
Cecelia Sharpe
Registered User
Username: Cecelia
Post Number: 9
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, June 01, 2002 - 1:30 pm: | |
Where is Ghostbuster when we need him to monitor the sandlot? Come on boys and girls. Let's play nice!!! (not nicely NICE)
As Linda says, mold handling changes daily. The only thing that is certain, for adjusters handling mold claims, is that change will occur. I feel my head spinning as I sit in front of my computer (getting the blisters mentioned by Mark). I remove my fingers from the keyboard and begin to rock back and forth. I am killing trees (forests!!) with the amount of paper I use.
The quotes Jim used are correct. I have printed and read the information regarding SB 1763. The Big 3 are on the opposition list. And, IMHO, with good reason. Check out the Senate Bill - Bill Analysis (either date). Look under item 3. Support. It states, in part, . . ."says the most common scenario for mold growth is an occurrence such as a leaky roof or a burst pipe that suddenly introduces moisture into an indoor environment. These occurences are clearly covered acts". . .
Out here in California a leaky roof is NOT a clearly covered loss (neither the roof nor the leak) unless it is leaking due to damage caused by a covered peril such as wind (we don't get much hail out here and lightening is very very rare). And for RESULTANT DAMAGE to be covered due to a pipe burst there are certain criteria that must be met. These are examined on an individual basis on each and every claim. Neither of these situations is "clearly covered". If they were, I wouldn't be tearing my hair out. If we have a covered water loss (as water is excluded unless certain conditions apply and this is the small area where we look to try to find coverage) we then must deal with whether the mold damage, related to the water loss, is covered. This is based on the various policies and endorsements in effect at the time of the loss.
Another point in this analysis (5. Staff Comments) states, in part, . . ."Although the DOI did not have a position on this bill when the analysis was prepared, a representative did confirm that the Insurance Commissioner (IC), as he so stated at the 4/3/01 committee hearing, has limited authority to prevent an insurer from excluding certain hazard coverage from a policy, including coverage for mold damage.". . .
I'm not sure what "limited authority" means in this case. We can all make our own inferences. On page 1 of this document we are shown, under Existing Law 1. "Provides that the Department of Insurance (DOI) shall regulate the business of insurance, including the manner in which property and liability policies are issued and fulfilled."
Today, I see that as saying that the DOI can regulate the business of insurance, but that the Insurance Commissioner has limited authority to dictate to the insurers what they will cover and what they will exclude. Again, this is my opinion and I have been known to be wrong (once in awhile!).
So HE'S right and SHE'S right and HE'S right too!!
(Message edited by Cecelia on June 01, 2002) |
Chuck Deaton
Member
Username: Chuckdeaton
Post Number: 21
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, June 01, 2002 - 11:31 am: | |
Insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion, allegatory in nature and ambiguity is construed in favor of the insured. |
mark salmon
Registered User
Username: Olderthendirt
Post Number: 187
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, June 01, 2002 - 10:03 am: | |
Linda you said it; rules that change weekly, wordings that have been patched so many times it would take a room full of yankee lawyers to understand, and insureds who are scared (rather then greedy) that's the life of the mold adjuster, along with enough paper and desk time to grow blisters. There is only one hard and fast rule for mold, never accept an assignment on a per file basis. Up up and away the mold awaits for another day. |
D Wong Whey
Registered User
Username: Dwongwhey
Post Number: 141
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 01, 2002 - 7:50 am: | |
"Armchair Quarterbacks"?
REALLY?
You are kidding of course........
(Message edited by dwongwhey on June 01, 2002) |
Linda Asberry
Moderator
Username: Linda
Post Number: 27
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, May 31, 2002 - 9:18 pm: | |
I have finally discovered what is really giving me a headache--it isn't the mold but rather the armchair quarterbacks who STILL just simply don't get it that there is not a "Mold" manual written in stone. Every claim is different and every unit handles them differently. What you do today may not be what is required tomorrow and once again the only thing that stays the same is change.
You wanted the senate bill number Mr. Sloane was speaking of and I gave it to you. I don't care a whit about anyone's challenges. This entire subject can be argued until the cows come home and tomorrow it will change. At least, I should say, it will change for those who are adjusting mold claims. The language is ambiguous and most courts have ruled in favor of the policyholders for just that reason. Once again, it doesn't matter what is in the contract if a court beats someone over the head due to the very language of it. You can either follow the ruling of the court or you can pack your lunch and spend a lot of very long days at the courthouse.
We don't live in a perfect world, nor are any of us perfect, this writer included, and we are all learning more each day. This issue and it's coverages or lack of coverages is only as informative as the last court ruling IMHO.
How many times have you gotten to a storm and low and behold there is a set of guidelines for that particular storm. Yes, you may have covered something the last time you worked that city but that's not how it will be treated this time. Carriers make decision on a moment by moment basis and we as the adjuster follow the guidelines. Courts are making those same decisions on an almost daily basis concerning "mold" coverage or lack thereof.
Mark, you are correct, same song, different verse. |
Roy Cupps
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 142
Registered: 1-1997
| | Posted on Friday, May 31, 2002 - 8:15 pm: | |
Link to SB 1763
CatAdjuster.org An Adjuster to Adjuster Community
|
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 315
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 31, 2002 - 8:07 pm: | |
The last poster is correct that California Senate Bill 1763 ("As Amended") sponsored by Senator Deborah Ortiz has passed the California Senate Floor on a third reading by a 21-11 vote.
The status of this proposed legislation is that it is now being "held at the desk" over on the Assembly side ("House") where it has not had a "first reading."
From a process standpoint, the bill has a long way to go before enactment into law, which is by no means certain, nor is any enactment necessarily how a final enacted bill might look after further amendment.
Now, let's take a look at what California Senate Bill 1763 (as currently amended) really says (and I quote from the California Legislative website):
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
"SB 1763, as amended, Ortiz. Insurance: mold damage.
Existing law provides that the Department of Insurance is responsible for regulating the business of insurance in this state.
This bill would require any property or liability insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2003, to cover mold as an ensuing loss.
The bill would provide, however, that insurers COULD EXCLUDE MOLD as a noncovered peril covered loss if the insurer states the exclusion in clear, explicit, and understandable terms.
The bill would require an insurer or its representative, agent, claims handler, expert, or adjustor to disclose immediately all relevantinformation to an insured if mold is implicated, likely is to be present, or to result from a claim and to inform an insured when mold is reasonably believed to have ensued from a covered loss.
Vote: majority. Appropriation:no. Fiscal committee:no. State-mandated local program:no."
Please go back and review the specifics of my challenge as previously outlined.
California Senate Bill 1763 basically says 2 things:
(1) Insurance carriers (in California) MAY NOT exclude mold coverage.
(2) Insurance carriers MAY EXCLUDE mold coverage as long as they state the exclusion in clear, explicit and understandable terms.
(The above is a prime example of one of those random bouts of wisdom on the part of state legislators which I mentioned previously)
Most anyone should be able to see proposed California Senate Bill 1763 as a "political" bill introduced solely to curry favor with a specific constituency without any measure of meaning whatsoever. If you shelve your bias, you will have to admit this bill really says nothing nor contains any real meaning equal to a hill of beans beyond whatever political advantage is gained by and for the introductory Sponsor by having "bragging rights" for the distinction of being the first state legislator to introduce mold legislation in California. (Perhaps an overt political tactic with which to begin a campaign for the office of state insurance commissioner by Senator Ortiz?)
So to answer your question Madam Poster: NO.
Your response in no way even begins to approach the threshold of criteria as outlined in my previous challenge nor what I think the gentleman was suggesting. My challenge was to please show a Bill (number) from any US State Legislature pending or approved which would propose to write a specific insurance policy or policy endorsement.
But please feel free to try again.
(Message edited by jimflynt on May 31, 2002) |
Linda Asberry
Moderator
Username: Linda
Post Number: 26
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, May 31, 2002 - 7:04 pm: | |
Per A. M. Best Company, the bill sponsored by Senator Deborah Ortiz would prohibit commercial/personal insurers from seeking exclusion to mold coverage as an ensuing water loss.
California Senate Bill 1763 passed on a 21-11 vote. Is that what you wanted? |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 314
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 31, 2002 - 5:22 pm: | |
Memo to Bill Cook:
Please provide CADO readers with a House or Senate "Bill Number" or cite the Statute Number for any enacted legislation from ANY State legislature anywhere in ANY of the 50 states which PROPOSES or PROPOSED to write an insurance policy endorsement or policy (not including of course, quasi-governmental insurer bodies such as FWUA or TWIA).
I'll bet you a steak dinner at Outback Bill that you can't come up with even one (which has not been overturned by the courts). That last caveat about judicial intervention notwithstanding, I still don't think you can find ONE!
I challenge you to PROVE ME WRONG!
Furthermore, I think you would agree, that for carriers opting out of operating as "admitted carriers" within the various states, that there is no requirement for "form and rate" approval for non-admitted carriers; thus those carriers are free to write and adopt whatever policy language as the market, and not the regulators, may dictate.
I'm not saying that legislatures don't enact stupid legislation from time to time, but generally when they do, the courts are there to overturn the more outlandish schemes.
You seem more intoxicated by the powers or presumption of powers of state legislatures than I, and I would suggest that the far greater power of insurance regulation within most if not all states lies with the State Commissioner of Insurance. In that the legislature confers powers through legislation to the DOI in these sundry states, I will concede that they do have some power and influence more often on an indirect basis, whereas the DOI Commissioners powers of regulation and rule making are more direct.
It is a given that state legislatures and state legislators are strongly influenced by lobbying interests in passage of legislation as well as the extent and exact language of such legislation. It is also a given that the insurance industry has a powerful and well funded lobbying group not only in Washington but also in each of the state capitals. The "other side" is not as well organized nor equally funded. It does not always carry the day, but the influence of carriers and industry groups on legislators and legislatures cannot and should not be underestimated by "the other side."
If anyone is naive enough to believe that insurance industry PAC money and campaign contributions don't have a significant effect on protecting the legislative interests of the insurance industry lobby, then I have some dry land down near where Bill lives that I would love to sell you!
It is also the nature of the beast that the Insurance Commissioners of the 50 states are politicians first and bureaucrats second, and as such, their primary focus lies in protecting their political fiefdoms. You will find few if any state Insurance Commissioners willing or receptive to abrogating or subrogating their generally tremendous powers to the legislative bodies.
Just my thoughts.
As a footnote, I served as the Administrative Assistant to the Speaker of the House for the 1969 Session of the NC General Assembly, so I am not entirely unfamiliar with the state level legislative process nor with the random bouts of wisdom of state legislators.
Finally: Have a nice weekend everyone!!!!
(Message edited by jimflynt on May 31, 2002) |
Roy Cupps
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 141
Registered: 1-1997
| | Posted on Friday, May 31, 2002 - 3:43 pm: | |
Posted by William S. Cook on Friday, May 31, 2002 - 10:33 am:
Contracts of insurance are different from standard contracts between
parties and should be treated accordingly with a higher concern for
the interest of the insured. "The business of insurance, and every
person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several
States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business."
Let the ISO do as they will, the various states legislatures are the
final arbiters or controlling authority of insurance matters and what
should be contained in a policy of an insurer wishing to sell
insurance in the various states.
William S Cook
Public Adjuster
CatAdjuster.org An Adjuster to Adjuster Community
|
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 313
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2002 - 8:45 pm: | |
Ghost, there is an old saying in politics: "sausage and legislation should never be seen in the making."
As you know, insurance policies (and endorsements) are "contracts" between two (or more) private parties, to wit: a carrier and an insured.
While legislatures do have enormous powers, they do not have the right to draw nor impose "contracts" among or between private parties.
Insurance policies generally are developed in model form by the ISO and then adapted on the state level by the carrier and state insurance commissioner's offices. While the "fantasy" of a state legislature writing endorsements might be appealing to some, it just does not happen.
As anyone who reads this site with any frequency knows, I abhor "rumors" and restate that most outlandish ideas can easily be acertained as true or proven false with a little research as well as some good old common sense reasoning.
It amazes me that here on CADO especially, the propensity to post a rumor is directly proportional to the extreme outlandishness of such said rumor.
Now, beyond the unconstitutionality of state legislatures writing or attempting to write "contracts" between or among private parties, you are exactly correct; those legislator/idiots do from time to time adopt some pretty strange and nonsensical statutes.
One other old saying in politics: "no man is safe when the legislature is in session."
Now about banning our hogs.................
(Message edited by jimflynt on May 30, 2002) |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 282
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2002 - 4:04 pm: | |
That's true Jimmy, me boy! When the legislature is in session, most anything can happen. If you're not careful, you might wake up tomorrow and find the North Carolina legislature has passed a bill to make your states school teachers the highest paid in the world, banned all hog production, and seceded from the Union again!
It's a dangerous world out there on the legislative merry-go-round. Insurance policies are an easy target for a riled up mob. |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 312
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2002 - 1:04 pm: | |
Memo to Andrew Sloane:
(1) When did the California legislature replace or supplant the ISO (Insurance Service Office) in developing insurance policy endorsements?
(2) What is the Senate (or House) "Bill Number" for the legislation which you describe?
(As a footnote, last week I reviewed all the pending legislation and all legislation which was passed in the last session of the California Legislature, and found no such bill listed in either. And that research was done on the official website of the California Legislature.)
In my humble opinion, what you are reporting is nothing more than a rumor from someone who would hope it was so.
As to the comments posted by my good friend Ghostbuster: Ghost "mold" will become a major factor in the other 49 states when those states elect to liberalize their policies in order to be as leniently costly as that found in the Great State of Texas. |
mark salmon
Registered User
Username: Olderthendirt
Post Number: 186
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2002 - 10:33 am: | |
Why does it seem to me we had this conversation a few decades ago when they introduced that crazy replacemnt cost stuff. It to was going to kill the industry, new for old. But the extra premiums have helped somewhat. Same thing here, they'll all charge more and laugh on the way to the bank. Meanwhile daly rate, hourly, keep those losses rolling! |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 281
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2002 - 10:07 am: | |
Ah, yes Claimsranger, but will the carrier honchos want to sell this endorsement to those poor suffering souls on the left coast? And, if forced to do so, at what exorbitant price?
Also, why is the left coast now following the third coast in social morays? I was under the impression that, so goes California, the nation then follows. Could it be that Texas is now the standard setter? Hmmm. This could get controversial, I wonder what the good folk in Kansas will think of this concept?
So, let's start a mold scoreboard. Texas is fading into a No. Arizona is a firm No. California may well become a Yes. Alabama is a Yes, according to our boy Alan Jackson. (Please correct me if I am mistaken.)
Could we please have more information from the denizens of the other great states of the Union for our Mold coverage scoreboard? |
Andrew K. Sloane
Member
Username: Claimsranger
Post Number: 24
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2002 - 9:00 am: | |
FOLKS, things just got more interesting, California is/has passed a new MOLD COVERAGE endorsement (the senate) for their homeowners policy!! Now the House will rubber stamp it and go figure!!! if you think MOLD IS GOLD in TEXAS, wait 'till the 49'ers get a hold ofthe black stuff.!! Another 3-5 years of steady work on a daily rate. Whoooeee, can you imagine, say bro' I got a bag of the good stuff!! |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 269
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 10:36 pm: | |
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, Children of all ages! What we have received this A.M. is as delightful a representation of genuine Tarheel gibberish as can be found anywhere in this Cosmos!
Ahhhh!, the dialect. Ahhhh!, the imagery. Ahhhh!, the character development and pathos. (What's that you say? Oh, Yeah! I almost forgot.), And, Ahhh!, the sarcasm with ever so subtle undertones, tone, and overtones. (You're right! That does deserve extra points!)
Yea, verily, this son of the Great State of North Carolina has put forth an effort resplendent with regional flavor. We should all find this refreshing in this age of blandness and sameness.
I hear that faint battle cry echoing thru the pines and hollows, "Save your Dixie cups, the South shall rise again!"
As for content, well, that's a whole 'nother story. It seems to be a natty response to our Ms Linda's somewhat high toned missive.
I'm reminded of the comic strip, 'Dennis the Menace', wherein the character of Margaret walks by and sniffs disapprovingly at Dennis who is playing in the sandbox. Our boy then loads up his slingshot with a piece of cat dung from the sand and lets fly, missing her left ear by about an inch.
That's how I see it. What 'Margaret' does next is up to her. I do hope her response is heavily laced with Texanisms.
|
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 290
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 4:17 pm: | |
Clayton, thank-you for sharing your "yankee" point of view for consideration.
Rest assured I will take it under advisement.
Might I suggest next time you see a Jim Flynt post on CADO, that you not waste your valuable time and just ignore both opening & reading it?
(Message edited by jimflynt on May 09, 2002) |
Clayton Carr
Registered User
Username: Clayton
Post Number: 53
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 12:51 pm: | |
Mr. Flynt, it is with regret that I must state that I am disgusted by your early morning post that followed Linda's thoughtful commentary.
You too often use the excuse of humor for your contemptuous ramblings that unfortunately are seldom less than 50 words, and rarely are amusing.
Commentary, discussion, dissenting views and opinions on issues important to all of us - is what feeds this web site. Far too often you seem to have the compelling urge to satisfy an appetite to rudely attempt to belittle others and / or their comments in a manner beyond any measure of professionalism. You are quite capable of being a valued contributor to the technical issues found on this site, and I suggest to do otherwise erodes your stature and is of no benefit to those that access this site.
There is a line in the sand in front of each of us, and you have in an unpleasant manner crossed over mine. Your post coldly reminded me of Fuzzy Zoeller's attempt (in his mind) several years ago at humor, when he commented on what he thought Tiger Woods would order up for the Masters Champions dinner. |
Kelly Cooper
Registered User
Username: Kjmcooper
Post Number: 5
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 12:29 pm: | |
Andrew -
Each time you are exposed to anything that you are allergic to, your body will react stronger and the effects could be fatal (anaphylactic shock.) The only treatment, once anaphylaxis is established, is an injection of adrenaline which restores the blood circulation. Any other medication is too slow. Adrenaline is available via prescription in the form as an EpiPen® or AnaKit®, and a supply should be carried at all times. Numerous people die each year, because they can't get the treatment they need immediately. There are also other medications which can be used in less severe cases, these include steroids, antihistamines, and cortisone.
Asthma sufferers should also consider carrying these with them as the EpiPen® device can reverse the severe spasm of the airways.
I am not being a Sunday school teacher.... more like a boy scout. "Be Prepared.". |
Andrew K. Sloane
Member
Username: Claimsranger
Post Number: 18
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 7:10 am: | |
Let me see if I can addres ALL of your questions Jim,
A:POOR HOUSEKEEPING; An HOB policy with 3-4 unreported water losses with ensuing mold that is indistinguishable from a single source so BAM, you have a mold claim, then you have to open 2 other COL's. = 3 claims, or a reported loss where the PH makes the repairs but to save money because of the deductible they aren't quite what the carrier allowed for and now MOLD as the ensuing loss! A/C pan leaks are common here and some folks have had several in a year period. You run the a/c year 'round here.
B:Petro-Chemical Pollution; spindleyop was punched in 1901, Since then, before development, there was a hole punched nearly every 150 feet square with a derrick on it and now there are houses and people living on top of toxic sludge pits that will eat a 4" cast iron pipe in half in 8-10 years causing slab leaks with mold as an ensuing loss. We have an entire unit of "SLAB DOGS" that do nothing but slab claims then we get the mold side. The entire Golden Triangle is 1 of 3 Tx superfund sites for pollution from the plants here. Are you familiar with the EPA points system?Co.s trade 'em like cards!
C: Improper handling; As a matter of fact, yes, I AM the 2nd, 3rd & even 4th Adjuster on the loss(s).!!When an Adjuster looks at the claims history and he sees 2 prior water losses and then researches them (As we should) he finds a claim was filed and handled to the carriers benefit or incompletely several years ago and now the good 'ol a/c pan has leaked again and BAM, MOLD throughout the house at levels that would kill a roach! Not being facetious but the moldy houses here do not seem to have the common wood roaches that are prevalent in this region. I just snapped to that. God, they even can survive a nuclear attack!! Then there is flood from Alison, and we know mold is not covered under flood, BUT, they have had a water loss reported AFTER the storm and guess what? the ensuing mold IS COVERED because the COL is indistinguishable because the good son watching the house cranked down the a/c and when poppa san got home the a/c pan had flooded the entire house from the top down. Go figure!! We end up paying for it. period. I have been fortunate enough to be the 1st Adjuster on alot of my claims so I have ben able to close them as they are water losses and have been handled that way or denials. And Mr. Cook, with all due respect, publish at the University you work for, geeezus, not one word of what I've read has had ANY impact on any of my compatriots claims here and the way we are handling them. Old Jose' couldn't care less. Come on down for a visit Jim and I'll show you what I am talking about & Linda will also. Nuff said for now. The Mold awaits!. |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 289
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 6:34 am: | |
Aw shucks Lil' Billy, you done gone and done it now. Ghost I thought your job was to keep gurlz out of the clubhouse when we'uns is habbin our Wednesday rasslin' matches, an to 'specially keep yo eye out for dat sunny school teacher.
Lil' Billy, bringing that new fangled sunny school teacher Miss Prissy in to save yo hide, why that's downright 'ginst the rules....ask GBuster.
Why next thing ya know, Miss Prissy'll have ya wearin a bow tie an shiny new shoes wid buckles and goin to church on sundays while Ghost, an Tom, and Mark an me and em'll all be down dat fishin hole. Liables to clean behind yo ears and if ya hain't careful, scrubbin ya elbows too. Den takin' ya home to da big house for butta beans and fried liver and broccli and lemondaid. Sunny school teachers and gurl'z is like dat sometimes, dey mean well, but da don't know betta.
Betta too lebe the men stuff for de men and take de women and lil' boyz somewheres where dey don habe to see da wayz we men sometimes settle our fusses and fights and den go fishin' so we can drink us one and catch fish whil' tellin' stories. 'Member that school teacha lady we ran off dat time Ghosbuster who was only 'round 'bout a week? Boy'd we scorch her tailfeathers and mighty quick too!
Lil' Billy, she liables to have ya learnin dose Salms, and sayin' yo prayers, aand singin' bout Gee-sus, and heppin old ladies 'cross da street. 'Course you may need to learn to say yo prayers if yo gone to hang out with dat church lady and den try'n come back to da clubhouse.
Ghost sez he done goun and foun where his Deddy hides his hootch, and after the next rasslin' match he goin gib us all a lil' sip. Says dat stuff jus fo da big boys. Lil' Billy yo is welcome to join us and den we rassle some moah, and Jackson he goin show us how to do a full nelson, and den we go gits an ice cream float frum dat nice lady what work at the drugstore sodie fountain.
Now Miss Prissy if youn's wud be so kind as to go back and hep dose po' chil'ren wid dere sunny school lessons, and Salms, and singin' an a'praisin Gee-sus, the rest o'us rascals wanna git back down to bidness.
Why dey say Miss Prissy don't 'low not spitballs either and dey also sez she can say "NO. Stop that" in 27 differen' languages. Miss Prissy don't belibe in no young'uns habben no fun or habben no smile on dey face.
Lil' Billy, dis ain't no place for no sissys and no saints and no sunny school teachers and you better 'member dat. Sooner or later they try and turn's you into sum'un you not. Whens your knee stop hurtin' from dat shin kickin' ya got, yo come on back out heah and play, you heah?
Ghost ol' son, now what was hit dat we was rasslin' 'bout? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page