| Author |
 Topic  |
|
danmeler
25 Posts |
 Posted - 10/18/2003 : 16:00:35
|
| OK, what IS the story about Nationwide and "the outfit from Birmingham"? I know the outfit, but what is the rumor? PS: Clayton, hang in there, I'm guessing what you're doing is a lot more important than many seem to think. Information is power...the LAST thing they want an IA to have. |
 |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2003 : 16:50:16
|
| Thank you Dan. However, if more people recognized or realized what you said, I'd have the 10 different fee schedules by now, or even 15 or 20. But I don't. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 21:28:52
|
Well we have heard about corridor walkers to ridge walkers, and everything in between this weekend; quite interesting at times.
Tommorow evening is 14 days since I opened this thread. In that time I've received 7 different fee schedules from 5 or 6 people. I've had my ATV mired in the mud to the handlebars, and with 5 or 6 people extracted it in a day; with some cold beer in between grunts.
I don't agree with this, let alone understand this, but so be it.
Whatever I have by tomorrow night is what I'll work with. If less than 10 different companys are compared in the survey, the few contributors will each get an email of the results when I am done. |
|
|
|
pilot48
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 00:05:45
|
Clayton, hello again to my friend to the north and in beautifull country.
Fee schedules as you know are subjective to the particular storm at hand. For this one, it seems based on what I've seen about $250.00 fee for claims up to $5,000 gross loss is standard for the area, give or take a few companies.
However, the trick is getting the vendor, such as N&C to actually pay the adjuster instead of pulling files to give same to their family and take credit for the work as well as the fees. The survey should maybe include vendors that have creditablity, an adjuster in the field might respect that more then just numbers on a schedule which may not truly materialize. After all, 60 or 65 % of a bad schedule actually paid, is better then a great schedule which doesn't get honored! Wouldn't you agree?
We all know what we're getting into as far as fees before we ever pack up and leave home, the problem recently is that everybody and their brother seems to be a "vendor", as such they suck many adjusters into working long, hard hours, only to jerk them around, found caught in lies, and finally get sanctioned by the Insurance Commissionor and files pulled.......the poor field adjuster is left hanging in the wind looking for relief.
That's something that maybe this site could lend some help with. How can we protect ourselves against these unlawful, dis-honorable "adjusters" acting as "Experienced Vendors" We all have been screwed over by them in one way or another.
Your input would be appreciated.
Your friend from the south............
|
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 08:01:47
|
G'day to you to Lee, and thanks for your note.
You have raised some interesting points, and they are all quite valid.
First, in relation to fee schedules being subjective to a particular storm, the majority of what I have to this point are current schedules applicable to all the lower 48 states - applicable to Isabel or whatever storm 4 or 6 months ago. Also, considering all the data I have at this time, the "about $250.00 fee for claims up to $5000 gross loss", is way below the median average.
Certainly I agree that vendor credibility and integrity is a major issue, and one that should be addressed. However, when I conceived this specific survey project, I considered it as an essential starting point to a "journey" that involves 4 or 5 steps.
Yes, people should know the fee schedule they are being offered, at the time of the standby call, but certainly before actual deployment. One of the objectives of this survey was to fashion it to be one of the "tools" an adjuster could use to evaluate the merit of each standby or deployment call. There are many things to consider with each standby or deployment call, but I think knowing where 'that' vendor sits in the overall picture related to the amount of compensation is important. Then, the percentage of the fee schedule being offered should be considered. With that in hand, then an adjuster has to consider the honesty and integrity of the vendor in question and the carrier for which the work is being done. Again, this latter issue is another step in the process and outside the intent of this comparative survey.
I fully agree that through CADO we should be able to do a better job in sorting out a lot of the other aspects relative to vendors and carriers. Again Lee, I see that as another step in the "journey' towards "protecting ourselves".
In a sense, I see this all as a part of our "empowerment" as a community within the insurance and claims world. I think the essential building blocks towards this empowerment will be derived from centralizing all the information and knowledge we can gather about the entities from which adjusters derive their income - vendors and carriers.
Hopefully, I have more clearly explained the purpose of this particular exercise that I have undertaken, and you and others will recognize that it could be a useful tool, but only one of the several necessary in our efforts towards a stronger position in our marketplace.
In that regard, the more fee schedules that are part of the survey, the better. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 23:49:41
|
I've been sitting at my desk for a few hours now, staring at the paper on it and musing to myself about the wonders of human nature. About all that I can conclude is that it continues to amaze me, and has been a constant fascination all through my claims life.
I don't have the ability to point a finger at 'the' reason, but today I received twice as many fee schedules in one day than had been received in the previous 13 days combined. Go figure, I can't.
Maybe something in Lee's post triggered some people, or perhaps the nature of my response to it, or maybe people just got around to it today.
Anyway folks, we will have a survey. I have fee schedules from over 20 different companies and over 30 different fee schedules for those companies and their clients.
The bit of work I had done on the 7 or 8 I had by last night, is now a tiny step compared to what lies ahead to assimilate over 30 fee schedules onto a generic spreadsheet and do some summaries. I'll work at it as time permits, mostly nights and weekends, and try to provide you with your results by month end.
I need a little technology tip or guidance. Obviously I can't just get on the keyboard and pound out a comparative survey. The question is, what is the best way to get this database onto CADO? The framework is an MS Access database spreadsheet, and it will be quite a few pages. The thought is that it can be a "living survey", updated every time 5 or 10 new or additional fee schedules come to hand.
No rush for an answer, but PM or email me with any tips or guidance; admittedly I am not a computer wizard.
For all those who will enjoy reading the results, you owe a big thank you to 10 or 12 people who went out of their way in the last 14 days to be sure this would be a decent comparative survey, by putting extra effort into getting a good variety of schedules. I wish I could publically thank them and specifically acknowledge each of them for their efforts, but that is not in the ground rules; and each contributor can take that to the bank.
Anyone that still has an interest to send a schedule, please do so, I'll be busy with what I have; then add to it later. Don't assume I have it, just send it. |
|
|
|
pilot48
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2003 : 16:11:08
|
Clayton,
I knew I some good purpose here! Have no clue on the macro thing, but look forward to it anyway.
Lee |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2003 : 20:43:36
|
I'm finished, I have done all I can do to this or for this project.
The survey is comprised of 30 different carrier, or vendor, or combination thereof fee schedule sheets; from which 46 different fee schedules were comparatively surveyed.
From the database platform I used, I imported the data back onto a MS Word document in various segments and chapters; hopefully for a logical review along many different points of comparison.
My one regret, pretty irritating for me, is that when I imported the data I didn't preset my tabs for "book look" straight columns. I hope you don't find it as aggravating as I do.
Now, I have no idea how to get this into this thread, or for that matter into CADO anywhere. I sent an email to Roy on Friday, drawing his attention to the thread, asking for his permission and how to do it; I have not yet had a reply.
If there is a technical or administrative problem with importing this 40 page document into CADO, I will email a copy of it to those 10 who contributed plus 3 others who helped along the way. However, I only want to release this once, or 13 times at the most.
We'll see how the school house custodian guides us. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2003 : 09:11:27
|
I have heard nothing relative to my previous post, therefore I am in the process of sending by email the MS Word doc survey, to those 13 who contributed and / or helped.
What I have received is emails and PMs from several who did not contribute or help to make the survey a reality, for whatever it is worth; but want a copy of the survey. Since it appears that I have to email it out to comply with my 1/2 of the bargain to those 13, I'll continue to extend that co-operation to others who wish to contribute.
The following is a list of the 30 fee schedules sheets, and their date where available, that comprise the 46 specific fee schedules that are in the survey. For those that want a copy of the survey, fax or email me a fee schedule that is not on the list, or one with a more current date that is on the list.
With that, I'm being fair, under the circumstances, to my agreement with those that contributed, and we continue to build on the survey base; which hopefully will have some benefit as it matures and broadens. If that materializes, I'll do an update revision early in Q1 of 2004.
Advance Claims Service / Travelers, March 2000
Crawford / Ace
Crawford / Hartford, November 2002
Crawford / Safeco, May 2003
Crawford / Zurich, January 2002
Farmers NCC
Glock / Nationwide
ICA / Kemper
ICA / Travelers
Lititz Mutual
Met Life (only Isabel, NC, VA)
NCIUA (NC Wind)
NFIP, January 2002
North carolina Farm Bureau, July 2003
Pete N. Markos
Pilot / Allstate Commercial, June 1999
Pilot (wind, fire, hail), January 2003
Renfroe / Nationwide
RJMW / Amica, 2002
RJMW / Hartford
RJMW / Mid Atlantic, 2002
RJMW / Montgomery, 2000
RJMW / National Grange
S&S Claims Service, 2003
State Farm, January 2003
T.M. Mayfield & Co
Travelers Insurance, February 2003
United Claims Service, September 2003
USAA
Zurich NA, July 2003
By the way, if the person who faxed a schedule with the fax header "mental ____" cares to fill in the blank and send me an email to identify themself, I'll send a copy of the survey back; plus one other person who sent me a schedule by fax with no header or identity - let me know what you sent and your email address and I'll respond. |
|
|
|
Phil
USA
4 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2004 : 11:29:36
|
| hey Clayton, I am a storm chaser adjustersf rom Canada that has worked in the U.S. for several years.I buy in local or use Rooftop Roofing.It is january 2004. I am a licensed adjuster as well. I have read all the the posting's about fee schedules.I can't believe how any adjuster wouldn't die to have this information on who butters the bread the heaviest. i think you should rate thier morality, maybe percentage earned of commissions, would an adjuster work thier again,etc.I don't even adjust at current, but your info is awesome. Information leads to freedom and change.---Meaning higher commission's.Big brother never like's this information out, it's empowering to the adjuster.THIS STUFF LEADS TO HIGHER COOMISSION'S FOR ADJUSTERS, because if an insurance company saw themselves on this comparision as low, it could stop potentials Cat's from working for them in a catastrophe, aswell as acomplex of problems. Empower people even if they don't get it yet.email schedule to usbd@hotmail.com--please and thanks I have some adjuster's who would appreciate your work |
|
|
|
James J Knight
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2004 : 13:13:03
|
| As my partner Mary Mason & I are total rookies the information in the survey would be of extreme interest to us. It might make the difference in whom we elect to work for. I would be very interested in reviewing the results of the survey! SolLunaAdjusting@AOL.com |
James J Knight |
|
|
|
danmeler
25 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 12:25:25
|
Contrary to the above post...the carrier who sees itself at the bottom of the fee schedule might very well occupy that position with great pride and affection...knowing that no matter what, they can always get people to work for whatever the carrier is offering. Bottom line is, it doesn't have to be you or me, but someone will do it and THAT's all they care about. I contributed a fee schedule and do believe that we, as adjusters, need all the info we can get to be selective as to who we work for. Information is Power.
|
|
|
|
gloverb
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 19:55:36
|
I am new to this posting, but what I have seen is that the same company may have different fee schedules depending on the storm. For example I saw different schedules for hail damage in Columbus, OH than they had for hurricane Isabel in Richmond, VA.
Is this typical? |
|
|
|
345
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 09:45:00
|
| Yes, Gloverb, the ins co and adjusting co do have several different fee schedules, usually keyed to storm intensity. The line of thought is that in a hurricane situation, the adjuster will have more and larger estimate claims and closer together, so that the adjuster will make too much money in a short time, so the fee schedule pay is reduced. The problem is that a minumum hurricane; category 1; produces a lot of minimum fee claims, the adjuster works like hell to get them closed, the ins co wants all closed in 30 days and sends adjusters home early, the adjuster experiences high expenses while in a coastal area ( high rent, higher gasoline prices, high restaurant bills, absurd auto repair expenses, usually long travel expenses ).[xx(] The end result is that the adjuster would have been money ahead if he had stayed at home.[8] The fee schedules in the survey indicate that regardless of which co.you work for, the adjuster will have a lower average income per storm over a years time if he works several storms each year. [V] |
|
|
|
Janice Toll
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 10:36:27
|
Gloverb, while I agree with much of what my friend Milton has said, I have worked claims for some companies that have a higher schedule for hurricanes than hail storms. I guess those companies and/or the vendor recognize the greater expense in coastal areas. Once in a while you get lucky on expenses, as we did in Virginia Beach for “Isabel”. Oceanfront, living/kitchen area with separate bedroom for $675.00 per month. Lots of other adjusters stayed there as well. It was a great deal until the owners realized they could get more for off-season after a hurricane, due to the influx of adjusters, tree cutters, restoration personnel, etc., and changed the rates for those who did not already have off-season quotes.
It’s all a crapshoot; you take the good with the bad and hope for the best. It’s all part of the adventure and I hope to continue with that adventure for many years.[8D]
|
Janice R. Martin-Toll |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fee Schedule comparisons
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
