| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2003 : 19:11:36
|
TT, I see what you want to do. Its sounds like a good idea. It will take some doing. I would suggest something envites the interest of staff and independents alike. The more the merry'r! Good luck!
Kevin, peace it is. BLT offered me a ride in his limo. I have to raise the white flag as well. I might still run him down if I see him on the street, but for now, all is well.
BLT, promise me if you become a staff adjuster, that you won't pay for tile roofs with thermal cracks.
CD
|
 |
|
|
Brooks Todd
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2003 : 09:17:42
|
| Once again the read the first post, about thermal cracks in tiles. I will only pay for what my employer deems is covered. I ride for the brand. |
|
|
|
Noble R. Nash
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2003 : 22:22:24
|
| give me a ballpin hammer just after hail,is like my ring at stateded value just before tax time. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2003 : 23:23:33
|
| ? I'm confused, Noble, have you broken into Ghostbuster's firewater again? |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 00:34:52
|
Test
|
Lon |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 01:01:23
|
Well, Todd, it seems you took the brunt of the flaming. For that I extend my apologies for my former brethren in the claims industry.
1. SF's expansion theory is Bogus 2. Haag's directional hail theory is Bogus and so is their new higher number of hits threshold 3. Granule loss IS a product of normal wear and ONLY a manufacturer's "Rub Test" will determine if it is premature or will cause diminished value or a shortened lifespan. 4. Kile still can't explain why an "off square" contains fewer shingles than an "on square" and prove it mathematically. 5. There are 'roofer bullies' and 'adjuster bullies'. You'll find more adjuster bullies here and more roofer bullies at the Roofing site. 6. Granules in the gutter prove ONLY that there are granules in the gutter. 7. "Structural Integrity" or "intended purpose" of a shingle is a 'catch phrase' used by engineers and other so-called experts who are asked to back up bogus theories to deny certain claims. 8. When a shingle is hit by hail, breaking the mat is not the only way it can be damaged - there can be separation of the coating from the mat with no destruction of the mat and THAT, all you experts who don't know any better, you can take to the bank. UV degradation is another source of damage when no mat damage occurs. 9. As far as not owing to match, that language appears NOWHERE in any state's homeowners policy. 10. As far as have the right to choose a contractor, the homeowner is allowed to do that in some states such as the one you are in, Todd. He may also do so WITHOUT having to pay the difference AS LONG as the chosen contractor's price is FAIR (IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE LOWEST OR MATCH ANY INSURANCE GENERATED AVERAGE PRICE SURVEY).
I have 30 or 40 more points that can be used to prop up one side or the other but my 11th is to ask why this thread was hijacked to try to begin ANOTHER price and fee fixing thread - it seems that the adjusters are doing the very thing to the carriers they have accused poor Todd and other representatives of that obviously sub-human species of doing to them - demanding a living wage.
Glad I do neither adjusting or construction now and only consult on class action suits these days. The one that's coming will be a "doozie" and affect MILLIONS of previously settled roof claims.
Look for it in a theater near YOU!
|
Lon |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 08:44:31
|
| Nice to have you back in the clubhouse, Lon. Did you bring a box of doughnuts for us all to share? |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 08:58:26
|
Lon, where in the policy does it state that the insurance company does owe to match? Just curious.
And by the way, our per square price for removal includes starters and felt and any overlap and nails and bird doo and anything else up there. I'm right, you're still wrong. You just keep thinking that the engineers are wrong. What exactly are your academic credentials? Do you have any degrees at all? |
Edited by - KileAnderson on 10/19/2003 09:11:53 |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 08:58:31
|
Thank you Mr. Sterling for sharing your opinion. We will file it next to the rest.
Class action lawsuits are the result of attorneys and so-called experts looking for grey areas of policy coverages and exploiting them. Do you think mold just appeared in the last five years? No, just the idea of how to make a buck off it.
|
Edited by - CatDaddy on 10/19/2003 11:55:10 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 10:00:24
|
Lonnie, step back from the tar pot for a moment.
I left a map to a plate of cookies for you in a new thread in the General Forum - "Class Action - Roofs - Closed Claims??"
I hope you enjoy the cookies, but will share in exchange, by responding to the question found there. |
|
|
|
william s cook
53 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 10:44:51
|
My experience regarding engineers is, that in many instances their training discipline does not make them imminently qualified to opine on any subject or project that the boss assigns to them. Many of them will not accept a project from a plaintiff attorney or a public adjuster for fear of alienating their cash cow (insurers). Many insurer-retained engineers and adjusters are outcome oriented and could not stand toe to toe with Mr. Sterling and the experience, expertise and knowledge that he appears to have in the arena of roofing. I don’t think relying on an obscure or obviated report serves the interest of fairness on either side of the pay window. Insurers should never pay more than they are contractually or statutorily obligated to pay, nor should they pay any less because of ignorance or incompetence or heroic gestures associated with one of the participants in the resolution of the claim.
William S Cook
Public Adjuster
|
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 15:20:03
|
First it is nice to hear the calm voice in the wilderness of the esteemed Mr. Cook.
Second, I'm so astonished that none of you have solved the world's problems or even those of the insurance/roofing/construction industry in my absence! The carrier's are still kicking your fee cat and you can only kick some roofer's price cat since that's the pecking order you've chosen to observe here.
Ghost, thanks for the attempt to be civil. I like only the glazed Krispy Kreme's - the other ones leak into the tar pot and just KILL the viscosity index.
Catdaddy said: "Class action lawsuits are the result of attorneys and so-called experts looking for grey areas of policy coverages and exploiting them. Do you think mold just appeared in the last five years? No, just the idea of how to make a buck off it."
Kinda reminds me of the "sweep flood and regravel" listed nowhere in any recognized roofing specification manual and the "gross on and net off" tear off theories - those are simply ways for carriers to exploit policyholders and make a buck off it.
Kile said: "Lon, where in the policy does it state that the insurance company does owe to match? Just curious."
Kile, that's located just above the part where it says you DON'T owe to match. I know it's tough to find, but you really have to be looking for it.
Kile said: "And by the way, our per square price for removal includes starters and felt and any overlap and nails and bird doo and anything else up there. I'm right, you're still wrong."
Kile, you've never been able to mathematically say for certain that your debris removal squares are the same size as your installed squares and unless you REALLY count the shingles there, you'll continue to spout what you've been trained to say. Get an armored car or I guess in Louisiana they use wheelbarrows to carry money, and come bet me those squares coincide dimensionally with the volume of squares that are actually on the roof. Just saying they do over and over to yourself may help you put the truth toward the back of your mind but it still fails to prove your theory mathematically. Sorry. There is NO ONE here willing to prove those squares are the truly squares. When they "survey" for pricing, they don't ask you to figure a different sized square from a volume standpoint. Persons responding to surveys assume a square is a square but your industry is perfectly willing to use that sham to "exploit" contractors and policyholders - a charge which seemed to strike such indignation in Catdaddy's admonition of claimants, attorneys and contractors.
Kile said: "You just keep thinking that the engineers are wrong. What exactly are your academic credentials? Do you have any degrees at all?"
Man, Kile, that is so abusive notwithstanding the fact that your I.Q. would probably divide into mine at least twice. Why don't you show me YOUR Mensa card? With the exception of very few here, the writing skills found on this board show most couldn't make higher than a "C" in high school grammar and composition. Kile, you DO seem to be one of the more accomplished writers here but far from a Ghostbuster or me.
And to answer your engineering question. I laughed my butt off at the people who supposedly hold the "Holy Grail of Engineering Expertise" for the Insurance Industry. I've got copies of letters where USAA completely "dissed" them and vowed never to use them. Even said they were dissatisfied with their work after Hugo in a certain East Coast state. However, they were continuing to use the firm on a daily basis in Texas at the same time. Wonder if it was because those engineers were operating in that state without a valid Engineering license at the time? Hmmmm.....
Besides that, I've been through those C.E. classes and have seen some of the bogus theories get smashed to smithereens by REAL roof consultants.
We all know carriers use consultants and engineers because they will say what they're expected to say in support of denying a claim on a regular basis.
Innstead of being nice to Todd and explaining granule loss in a nice way, a lot of you jumped on him. And to the "expert" who gave the best non-professional theory on granule loss, it sounded pretty good and even had points that were true.
However the CHIEF reason there is granule loss of a general nature is NOT pushing in the granules with small hail. It is, however, because granules are made of uneven ceramic shapes and when they are literally dropped onto a moving sheet covered with heated asphalt coating, they do not imbed uniformly. Some granules actually wedge between two granules that ARE imbedded into the coating. Those are often called "rider" granules since they are only along for the ride. They become the first victims and are lost in various phases during all the processes which follow the granule drop all the way from packaging, installation, scuffing and the most gentle of weather conditions.
As a great man once said, "You can always tell an Adjuster. You just can't tell him much. Or was that Jim Flynt on roofers? Well that is certainly the lumber crayon and digital camera calling the tar pot and modified bitumen "black".
Buena suerte on your attempts to pass roofers on the food chain, however, you should be nice to the Todds you meet along the way.
And... I'm ready to measure tear off ANY time, as long as the wager is large enough to be interesting and you guys decide to quit dodging the question with insults and scholastic apptitude inquiries.
Best wishes, |
Lon |
Edited by - Lon Sterling on 10/19/2003 15:26:37 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 15:41:24
|
Ok, Lon, I think I have boiled it all down. This will be my last post on the tear-off question.
I am looking at an estimate from a roofer right now. He is charging $25 a square for tear off and i'm paying $28.90 in my estimate. MMMM. I wonder why there is a difference? If you figure a 20 square roof (without waste) he is charging $500 to tear it off. I'm paying $578. If you use a 10% waste factor he will charge $550. MMMMMMM. I'm still higher. Who is getting the better end of the deal here? You are arguing squares and I am arguing dollars.
If I say the roof has 2 squares and I'm going to pay a total $5000 to replace it and the roofer says it is 40 squares and is charging $4900 to do the job. Do I still owe for an additional 38 squares? I think not. An insurance claim boils down to dollars and cents. If the price is the same why would you argue about scope?
I had this same exact discussion with an insured yesterday. He said the roofer told him he needed 2 more squares than we had figured and wanted an additional $250 to do the work. After discussing the claim with this gentleman for a few minutes I finally got down to brass tacks. I said, what did you pay him? The insured told me that the roofer had agreed to do it for whatever the insurance check was for (meaning minus the deductible). This insured had a $500 deductible and had paid the roofer the amount of our payment and now the roofer wants an additional $250 for the 2 squares he says we shorted him. It took me 20 minutes to explain to this man that we don't owe him any more money. If anything he owed the carrier money. He was talking squares, I was talking dollars.
The more I think about it the crazier this argument gets. If we are talking about a 20 square roof and I pay on actual squares for tear off and you are charging for tear off with waste that means we are arguing over $40-$50. On a roof that we have paid $2500-$3000 I'm not going to argue over $50. If that is what it takes to close the file I'm going to whip out my check book and write a company check for $50. Claim closed, now I can move on to the other 10 reopens I have to handle.
Thanks for the fun, but I will consider this argument over. I'll even let you say you won if you want. If my file is closed now I'm happy. |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 16:20:20
|
Lon, I am not sure what it is you actually do, but you dont charge by the word do you?
You strike me as a person who likes the sound of his own voice. Am I wrong? Its hard for me to tell, having such a insignificant IQ compared to yours. I can see why there were probably no tears when you left before. Care to try for 2 outa 3?
CD |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 16:22:57
|
Catdaddy: Shooting the messenger has always been a favorite sport of the uninformed. And... If you're intimidated by post length, yours COULD be 30% longer if you used punctuation.
Kile: We're not arguing. You just admitted you are wrong but that somehow your figure aligns with the roofer's price. Go check an Allstate claim and try their Net/Net on for size.
This is FACT: Insurers use the tear off cheat, however slight, to cheat the claim. Done millions of times, it is the same as paying $2 per pic one year and $1.50 per pic the next year. It simply DOESN'T even out.
While you may attract a cheaper roofer/adjuster, the bottom line PER CLAIM is still going South every year for both adjusters and roofers.
15 years ago, a cedar shingle roof was figured by the Big Five, as Catdaddy likes to call them, by figuring the same square on and off. How did the math change? Adjuster fees were higher then, too. Like it or not, we ALL know the real reason you figure tearoffs like you do instead of correctly.
In another post, you said things change. Yes they do. When they begin checking roofs with High Definition satellite imagry in 5, 10, 15 more years, will you trade your pickup in for a rocket and a satellite to stay competitive? No, you'll probably retire and consult like I do now.
My point to all of you is that I've discovered a whole niche of people here on this board whose only joy in life seems to be taking solace, however misplaced it may be, in being better than some roofer.
Are fee-cutting adjusters the only HONEST adjusters out there? That is your barometer for roofers - why isn't it your barometer for adjusters?
Hey, it's Sunday! Wal-Mart is OPEN! You guys should be shopping! |
Lon |
Edited by - Lon Sterling on 10/19/2003 16:28:19 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hail Damage Visibility
Forum Locked
