| Author |
 Topic  |
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
 Posted - 01/16/2004 : 16:48:07
|
| Recon Man.....I really asked a very simple question, that you still have not answered.......I would hate to ask "how are you today?"....I can only image the verbiage........ |
 |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2004 : 18:20:26
|
Recon Man,
I've met attorneys who are less verbose and read insurance polices that are easier to comprehend than your postings.
Why are you so obsessed with business models? If your time and expertise are so valuable and sought after, why are you spending so much time on these rambling posts?
We as adjusters don't go out and try to find the cheapest repair people we can. We have pricing specialists who set the prices and they set those prices by surveying the market. If you have a problem with the prices being paid you have come to the wrong place. Complaining to us is like complaining to the cashier at Wal-Mart that your Snap-Doodles should be $1.76 instead of the $1.94 they are charging. The cashier can't do anything about it and frankly doesn't care what you think it should cost. Same with us. We can't do anything about it and we really don't care what you feel your management skills are worth. You should complain to someone who can A. Do something about it, and B. Cares.
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 00:26:57
|
--JJ
Come on now...look how clever you were to find us...and those mapping skills you displayed were amazing. Did anyone video tape your investigative efforts? We can only imagine the intense dramatic comic value of the whole ordeal...especially when played in fast forward...
Surely those personal skills can be tapped into again so you can determine our background from our previous "ramblings"...To help you along, consider the following:
We're are whistle makers, so to speak...our whistles counter the effects that Pied Piper type whistle players create...
Do you really need more background? Or maybe just a review of our ramblings...? And humor us and present some meaningful dialog from now on. Or call or e-mail us.
--KileAnderson
Understanding and explaining complex issues regarding indemnity protection economics often requires more than two or three sentences to accomplish. And if the issues are to be looked at three dimensionally, a few more sentences may be necessary.
The "ramblings" you referred to might make more sense if they are re-read, and then thoughtfully considered, then discussed...verses being sarcastically dismissed.
We're confident a mature crowd hangs out here. Our personal observations, inquires and replies are directed to them, and anyone like them. All others will have to look for some one else to toy with.
Also, we type really fast, so our time spent on these "rambling" posts is minimal...
Just a suggestion...perhaps those [reconstruction] pricing specialists mentioned could study up on why and how premium values are established from sound construction business model econonmics...then the "we can get it done for our price" line will become one less cliche' to have to remember...
Opps...There we go again with that irritating business model stuff...
And finally,
A. You can resist carrier speak you know is wrong. Unless you approve...
B. Not caring is no surprise...that's why we make whistles.
|
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 10:01:11
|
Sonny-Boy, we are quite accustomed to comprehending intellectual tomes from our fellow pals here in the clubhouse. Your prose, however, continues to to be one obfuscation after another. To present your viewpoint in such a manner defeats the purpose of presenting your opinion. I, for one, would like to understand your view, but am unable to wade thru the prosaic muck and mire. An old adage observed that the simpler the presentation, the easier the recipient can understand it.
Being the typical bi-pedal, carbon based, more or less sentient being I are, my human reaction to your incomprehensible posts are glazed eyeballs, an urge to click to some other topic, then irritation that I have spent wasted time trying to decipher what I consider to be just so much mental drivel.
Please keep it simple. |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 13:06:04
|
--GB
We've considered the [replying] audience and will dumb down our comments accordingly...
Seriously though, we have much to talk about as our ongoing research indicates adjusters are also being questionably manipulated by [certain carriers] decision making processes that are inherently clashing with premium values vs. scope assessment and settlement practices.
A quote from the listed links below..."reinsurers must strive to make up for insufficient premiums realised during the soft market period and to continue strengthening their equalisation"...
http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwswpspr.nsf/fmBookMarkFrameSet?ReadForm&BM=../vwAllbyIDKeyLu/MPDL-5QFCYD?OpenDocument
http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwswpspr.nsf/alldocbyidkeylu/ULUR-5EK8CP?OpenDocument
Besides proper actuarial processes being in place, do you suppose all kinds of other creative money saving "plans" are also now in place? We can say yes...That was main the point of our previous raaammmmblings.
Would any [qualified] cat pros care to share their own thoughts on these matters?
--Sonny-Boy
P.S. Sorry about the glazed eye thing... |
|
|
|
C Bond
32 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 15:02:20
|
Mr.Poe,
You lead us to believe that you have spent great time and effort compiling a significant amount of research data to substantiate your position. If the claim environment is truly as one-sided as you propose and laws are being broken, then I'm sure you research would be invaluable to the investigative committee. Maybe you should present your findings to you local US Senator.
If the indiviguals at this sight are such intellectual inferiors, why bother. In an attempt to try and figure out you purpose for posting I see that your intent was to rally support for your cause. I assume that you are refering to what you beleive to be serious and widespread munipulation of the insurance industry at the expense of the insured and the contractor. Rallying support by insulting people never works. Your either oblivious to the affects of your posts or your rude. Either way I would support no cause or indivigual that presents themselves with the brass you carry.
|
|
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 15:16:17
|
My gracious, its hard enough to be a good and conscientious adjuster, now we are being asked to enter the rating arena for the companies we work for. We do their underwriting for them, pretty well pro bono. Now I guess we have one more thing to learn, so A.M Best etal, can rate the companies. I thought this was a roof forum, now an insurance company rating forum. Your kidding. Recon fella. I suggest you stick to the roofing business and keep your nose out of ours. I have a license to adjust property claims, not underwrite or rate companies. For our first lesson on reinsurance, please go to:
http://community.reinsurance.org/ScriptContent/index_fundamentals.cfm |
|
|
|
pilot48
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 15:25:48
|
Recon Man, the sites you refer to were the old Gay & Taylor buy outs. If you charge as much for the wrods as for the service, why are you wasting your time here, after all if you're "dumbing" down to us, then please keep going......down and out. Remember, less is more, and in that light you've failed as a roofer, and now as a participant in a discussion on adjusting.
Failure is good, deal with it or get back on that roof and hand the real workers they're material. Talk is cheap, in that regrads, you're broke now.
No reply needed, as we're tired of you wasteing the time of real workers, not just bulls**t wantobe's.
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2004 : 12:29:55
|
--C BOND
1. Appropriate entities are involved in these issues.
2. No one in our arena feels there are any "intellectual inferiors" here. In meditating on past cat topics and reply postings that have been conducted here, it can be said that there is a very intellingent, and insightful, group here. There are also some mob rousing mentalities scurring around this site. [Guilty consciences have a way of bringing those kinda' folks out into the light of day].
We are interested in thinking individuals insights that add to the overall reason our postings exist...just claim settlements.
3. Some initial content and replies were given with a playfully joustful edge....and as for supposedly being rude or insulting...try picking up on the flavor of some of the replies to us regarding our posts...all things considered, we feel we have defended ourselves rather politely.
4. You've acknowledged part of the purpose of our postings. The overall weight of your reply is supportive...and appreciated. Sarcastic replies we have received are not appreciated...but understood.
That said, claims settlement practice "sins", like war crimes, cannot be explained away by the "I was just doing as I was told" cliche...Certain insurers can blame underwritters, certain adjusting professionals can blame certain carriers via the carriers' "instructions"...and so on...
But when blatantly clear construction data is in place to help determine rational reconstruction processes and costs / premium values, and that data is ignored or unfairly dismissed, then those people involved singularly or en masse, who have, and may still be, shamelessly affecting others, should be held accountable.
--Tom Toll
Comments like "I suggest you stick to the roofing business and keep your nose out of ours" presents a kinda' tough order to follow since G.C.'s are major producers and "re-producers" of stuff you "adjust"...
We would rather you put YOUR nose in OUR [G.C.] business...then re-read our previous posts, then let's talk...
--pilot48
Reread our previous postings...and [certain] adjusters replies to those posts, and see whom is really insulting who...
**And help any latecomers to catch up...the topic concerns G.C. O + P being removed from the roofing cost values in G.C. estimates sub-total lines.**
For some of our previous points to gel, the following [partially] represents typically anticipated sub-trades needed to reconstruct a given hail / wind damaged project, and additional estimating steps necessary to assemble a "normal" estimate:
Roofing Contractor
+ Guttering Contractor
+ Painting Contractor
+ Garage Door Contractor
+ Window Contractor
AC Contractor
= Total [G.C.] Sub-trade Investment
A. Now then, with the sub-trades established, the next step is to fiqure out the reconstruction approach and cash investment needed to cover the sub-trades individual costs. Site conditions, materials, equipment, insurances, taxes, permits, inspections, etc. are acounted for.
B. The next step is to cover the G.C.'s, or other reconstruction specialist', labor [project management] costs since all of the sub- trades need to be properly assigned, orchestrated and monitored. [Note: Very few homeowners have the insight needed for complex problem solving tasks that a single trade or multi-trade project requires].
C. The next step is to account for [business operations] overhead
[10-11%] for advertising, phone bills, electric bills, vehical care, etc. costs.
D. Finally, the whole estimated investment is marked-up 10% to anticipate a fair and reasonable return on the whole investment. Less profit mark-up may be possible if the project value is large enough to allow room for any adjustments. "Large enough" meaning $100,000 - $1,000,000+. But, even large investments may carry certain risks that do not allow for mark-up to be reworked.
Now, with that said, new construction or reconstruction business investors do not remove any sub-trade costs from their estimates before critical O + P is accounted for.
Why not?
Because business critical O + P costs tied to all of the sub-trade investment risk, needing to be obviously and rationally accounted for, would be missing. If those costs are missing, or distorted, the estimate is disqualified from claiming to reflect sound estimating practice. The money necessary for a project to reach a profitable conclusion has to be accounted for...not wished for.
Fairly recently, [certain] insurers have instructed [certain] claim adjusting servicers, or corporate staff adjusters, to remove estimated roofing costs from their estimates sub-total lines.
Their "rational" for doing so..."The roofing contractors' O + P is already included in their [line itemed] costs". Let's assume that is true.
Remember...a roofing contractor's estimated costs is not the only trade being accounted for in the primary contractors' estimated investment costs, which should reflect all trades needed, and inherently, a fair return on the whole investment risk.
Remember too that insurers, and construction cost estimating data generating companies, widely recognize 10%/10% O + P as reasonable construction industry estimating cost factor norms for contractors
and adjusters to work with...and account for.
Adjusters who subtract the roofing trade, or any other sub-trade needed, from the primary contractors estimated investment costs will always underassess and underestimate a claims true value and thus underpay a claim. Period.
Many homeowners do not operate new or reconstruction construction businesses, and so do not mentally recognize convoluted estimating schema's that distort standard and normal estimating practice. [A basic estimating model, like the one displayed above, helps them to see and understand the issues our posts have touched on]. The education process to open the eyes of policy holders, or potential policy holders, is being provided "en masse"...and is well underway.
Also, our various associates do recognize the issues...and so we are encouraging all adjusters to continue to estimate / adjust in a manner that they, and those they represent, can unquestionably defend.
Finally...since Roofing Contractors O + P business costs are, supposedly, accounted for in insurers estimated line items...where are the other sub-trades O + P business costs being accounted for in those same estimates? |
|
|
|
okclarryd
USA
106 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 09:58:38
|
The reason O&P is not included in the roof settlement is that in too many instances, there is no GC that has his WC insurance extended to a roofing crew and there is no support for the payment.
Normally, when a GC is involved in a claim, the O&P can be added as a supplement. This is very rudimentary claims handling and should not be worthy of many pages of postings.
Once again..................."Children,Please!!!!!!" |
LARRY D HARDIN |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 12:01:10
|
| Seems to me a lot of good remodeling contractors started out doing insurance work. But no longer do IC work...why? |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 17:39:55
|
--okclarryd
With all due respect, when a single sentence reply to our post makes a "large" statement, a certain amount of keystrokes are needed to be able to properly reason on the weight of that sentence.
We have displayed above a typical example of the anticipated sub-trades needed for reconstructing a typical hail / wind damaged property.
G.C. O + P is always spread out to...and recovered from...all trades we invest in. It is calculated into G.C. / Primary Contractor estimates whether a roofing contractor is or is not needed. Whether or not a G.C.'s WC is extended to a roofing contractor does not change the G.C.'s 10%/10% sub-totaled estimated cost factors.
Grasping the G.C. 10/10 formula, from a business investment point of view, is relatively simple. Get in the business, and the economic realities behind constructing fully formed estimates will quickly surface. Ignore covering all costs and a person will soon have to work for someone who estimates business costs correctly.
Again...the roofing trade needed is just one of the many trades needed in the example given above. The roofing trade is not singled out of our investment before adding our O + P. They are hired along with all the other trades needed. It takes CASH FLOW [our investment] to hire and support all trades involved.
Our cash flow extends to covering all aspects of all trades costs they [the sub-trades] are covering through us.
Roofing Contractors, or any other sub-trade that carries WC / Liability overhead, increases G.C. investment costs.
G.C. or Primary Contractor O + P is applied to our investment / risk accordingly.
WC as a cost factor to consider or not consider, does not nullify the primary contractor's 10%/10% that is always needed to be properly accounted for in each and every estimate [sub-total] we invest in...
We hope this re-explaination settles why a critical portion of our postings exist.
There is a saying among contractors, that goes like this..."If insurers were in the construction business, they would estimate like they did when they were figuring out premium values"...
__________
Now then, we are looking for professional conversation that addresses the concerns of both contractors and adjusters who understand how the insurance industry is "restructuring", and how that affects us all as professionals...and our [policy promise paying] neighbors we all serve.
A concerted effort, that fights fire with fire retardants, is being sought from us...and our associates. We have national and international mass media sources positioned that would like to hear, and share, a good and solid consumer interest story.
Is there anyone here strong enough...and concerned enough...to contribute some fire retardant? |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 18:55:34
|
It is one thing when members of the family get into squabbles over how to cook the stew. It is quite another when an outsider tries to tell us how to cook the stew. Insurance matters are our stew. It is not your stew. This band of brothers does not look kindly on an outsider trying to invoke a kind of treason amongst us by interfering with our stewpot.
Please take your arguments to the carrier honchos. See what they have to say about your ideas. If you wish to bring along the TV camera crews and newspaper reporters, go right ahead. Just don't expect us to be a part of your pep squad. We may well be there, but only to witness the spectacle and laugh. |
|
|
|
Admin
547 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 18:13:09
|
The following post is a transfer from
http://www.catadjuster.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=899 made by Reconstruction Man on 4/6/2004.
Kile sez,
"It is the same kind of software and pricelists that are used to handle insurance repairs for all kinds of other losses. I'm sure when the dust settles the problem will be found to be something other than the software."
___
4-6-2004
Dear Dr. ******,
Please be aware that Mr. **** ***** and I came to agreement on the majority of the hail / rain damage scope to your property, reconstruction processes and pricing.
However, there are two issues that need resolving:
1. Restoring the outside AC unit.
The AC foil "combing" process being recommended by *******co is questionable for a number of reasons. The [factory engineered] cooling foils are coated with a black protective finish which the combing process can remove. The [factory engineered] architecture of the foils has been lost by the hail trauma and cannot be duplicated by the combing process". Also, as a side point, the combing process can make it "clear" the AC unit is "worth less" to any potential homebuyer per a home inspection report.
We will attempt to obtain the / a AC factory representative-engineers' view on this issue.
2. This project indicates multiple [7-8] trades from the sub-trade pool.
A. Roofing Contractor
B. Painting Contractor
C. Window Contractor
D. AC Contractor
E. Insulation Contractor
F. Sheetrock Contractor
G. Sheetrock / Ceiling Texturing Contractor (Possibly by Sheetrock Contractor)
H. Garage Door / Controls Contractor
+ General / Executive Contractor
For some reason[s] unknown *******co feels the Roofing Contractor costs are to be removed from the G.C. estimated business costs factors before ALL G.C. business overhead and profit factors [10/10] are logically / soundly accounted for.
This is NOT rational / sound [new construction / reconstruction] G.C. business estimating practice. G.C. business overhead, and [reasonable] profit anticipated, is applied against the whole value of a financial [construction investment] risk.
The whole reconstruction process requires appropriate products/processes/pricing oversight and involvement. Our estimate breaks those [insurer aware] costs out to help represent verifiably fair construction estimating practice. Please advise us if *******co attempts to explain ["cost plus 10% profit" construction accounting principles] otherwise, or refers you to another contractor.
Again, we are not contesting the rest of the *******co estimating values. We are asking for the *******co G.C. OHP estimating methodology value factors [alone] to be taken to "appraisal" because of the [anti-competitive] business accounting issues mentioned above.
Sincerly,
US
Yes Kile, when the dust settles "carrier [delivered] instuctions" are going to be laid out for all to think about.
"Adjust" accordingly... |
|
|
|
Admin
547 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 18:29:24
|
Transfer posted by Russ on 4/6/2004.
As in the past Recon-man is preaching to the choir. If a GC could show me a just reasoning for O&P, for ANY reason, I would submit it to the Vendor to forward to the Carrier. If the Carrier decides not to pay it for whatever reason, a homeowner has the right of Appraisal. It is as simple as that. I have known vendors to go to the mat with the Carriers if justified. We the Adjusters are only soldiers following the orders of the Vendors Cat Manager. Vendors pay us. Carriers pay the Vendors. I can give you some Carrier web sites if you need them!!!
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hail Damage and G.C. O&P Sleight of Hand
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
