| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
 Posted - 09/15/2003 : 08:23:07
|
Good post Ted, with some good points brought forward regarding risk transfer relative to the issue of an adjuster on a roof versus potential affects of OSHA involvement.
As we all have seen around us, and still see today, the preferred vendor concepts of a carrier are spreading; including to that of the "independent third party roofing professional".
In my neck of the woods, a person with such a moniker, is compensated at a greater level than an "adjuster" doing the same function; apples for apples - on the roof, scope and pictures. However, the claims industry locally makes sure that the PV does not step outside their boundary with any of the "adjusting" steps including any claims discussions with the insured or estimating the cost of any damages noted relative to the policy in force during their "investigation or assessment" of the roof.
How did that "PV roofing professional" manage to get a higher "inspect fee" than the typical I/A adjuster doing those same 3 steps? The only answers I can find are that the PV "sold" their expertise to the claims industry, coupled with the basic principals of supply and demand.
Still, the "claims adjustment process" is not within the parameters of this PV roofing professional, and unless they transformed themselves legally into an adjusting entity; they never will be able to complete the "claims adjustment" process.
If, Ted's thoughts on this possible risk transfer occured, where would the hordes of needed "roofing professionals" come from? Would it not be from the roofers who are swelling the ranks of the adjusting industry now as "roofers cum adjusters"? So what would change, I would think there would just be a shift of personnel back to their former trade?
Someone - an adjuster - still has to adjust a property claim, whether they did all the steps involved to reach the finish line or utilized other services to help in the process, then managed the claim elements as an adjuster to achieve a closed file.
I don't see the "tragedy" of that possible scenario that Ted has clearly pointed out.
One thing I do see, and have seen for years, is the improper risk assessment of risk by an adjuster; relative to climbing a roof in pursuit of another fee account. I've often heard adjusters say that "I shouldn't have gone up but I did" for whatever circle of reasons; but most motivated by the almighty dollar, followed by pride, then by the stubborn macho nature inherent in all of us. These "motivators" affecting our assessment of the risk involved, are perpetuated within our industry by our "employers". That is an element of this business that I find quite unfortunate. |
 |
|
|
TedPasan
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2003 : 08:46:34
|
I especially agree with your last paragraph and do indeed see many adjusters who make the wrong decisions for what many would see as wrong reasons: money, macho, pride as you say. And as your further point out, from pressures however subtle from our peers, vendors and carriers.
With regard to your other comments, once a field inspection (without any "adjusting") is completed by the roofing professional, we both know the claim could then be easily handled by the telephone adjuster or staff adjuster back at the carrier barn. In not insignificant ways, that process exists now save and except a field inspection, whether by an adjuster or a roofer.
The motivation behind the transfer of the field inspection by carriers to professional roofers and away from adjusters, it seems to me, is as I outlined earlier: a true transfer of legal liability as a risk management technique. Inherent problems in temporary employment among independent and cat adjusters, makes the same true transfer of risk more cloudy and less certain. The precedence created by the spread of preferred contractors for the carriers only sets the stage for the threat of a growing transfer of the inspection portion of the claims process for roofs to professional roofers and third party vendors ever more likely. And anything we do which tends to create uncertainty over increased OSHA regulation and compliance, only serves to lessen our roles in that process, due to a retention of liability risks inherently unavoidable in our temporary employment roles. |
Edited by - TedPasan on 09/15/2003 08:55:43 |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2003 : 09:40:23
|
| The primary reason for PV,s is "Service" and saving the IA,s service fee on routine"regular" losses.I believe more than 50% of the floor, walls, cabinet type small claims are desk adjusted by using PV for the "eye".Chirp up staff adjusters. |
|
|
|
dparsons
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2003 : 17:30:35
|
| As I recall, a State Farm adjuster fell off a roof in Denver in 1990 and suffered injury. OSHA investigated and fined State Farm a whole bunch because their ladders did not extend far enough above the roof line. This was not too long after the ladders got shorter because the car trunks were teeny. (If anyone has had to climb roofs in Aurora, they know what I am talking about) The story continues that State Farm went to Stapleton Ladder to get a ladder made that would go into the trunks of their Co. cars but would be long enough to comply with the OSHA standards. Stapleton had sold by then but the original owner was contacted and it was discovered that he had made some hinges a long time before that were for a 4-way ladder but had never done anything about it becuase there was no demand. Well, the four section "hernia maker" from Stapleton was born! These came out around the end of 1991 or in 1992 but were heavy as lead. Stapleton then developed the ladder with the slide on top piece. So, OSHA does, or did, impact adjusters. I have worn out about 4 Stapletons and have a new 3 fold with the top section that will go to 15' or 16' What is funny is that my first Stapleton was 16 feet tall and had laminated sides and was very easy to carry. It also fit in the Co. cars back then. As a matter of fact, you can park todays Co. cars in those old car trunks! That ladder was discontinued because it could not pass one of the safety requirements because the sides were not solid. As you can tell, I am partial to my Stapleton ladder. I don't want an aluminum ladder like these Little Giants, becuase I hate metal ladders. They blow down, get black crap all over your hands and clothes, and I have never heard of anyone getting electricuted by laying a Stapleton on a high voltage wire. If you have ever done commercial roofs or pulled ladders up a story or two, you also know what I am talking about. I leave the roofs over 8/12 to others. OSHA should outlaw them! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
OSHA - roofs - adjusters?
Forum Locked
