| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Linda
USA
127 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2004 : 23:34:22
|
It seems that this is happening with more frequency. Weeks and months later the original adjuster is being notified that his fees are being charged back. Sometimes this happens with no explanation whatsoever.
I personally feel this unfair when the original adjuster made his recommendation based on the guidelines presented to him by the carrier. If the carriers later change guidelines or make exceptions as they sometimes do then why would they consider taking the monies already earned by the original adjuster and redistributing them to another. Granted, they don't want to pay two adjusters but if the first was not at fault through poor adjusting, then the carrier should have to pay twice.
I personally have finished claims where the original adjuster "bailed" out of the storm and had billed the full fees which he had not earned because he had not completed the inspection. Even then, the full fee was not "taken away"; only a portion of it. The original adjuster had done some of the inspection, therefore, he was entitled to some of the fees.
If your fees are being charged back, do you know why? What is a reasonable period of time for fees to be charged back? What defense do you have, if any?
This has not happened to me, however, I know it is happening to others and not from a single carrier. |
Edited by - Linda on 03/13/2004 00:07:00 |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2004 : 23:54:44
|
| I suggest you find an employer who doesn't do this kind of thing. |
 |
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 00:44:15
|
The basic rules, (probably forgotten by many), are that the original adjuster MUST be given the opportunity to rework, correct, or decline such opportunity.
If, in fact, the adjuster is not allowed this option whomever works the file may be in serious conflict with "tortuous interference" or other such legal matters.
The use of another’s work product sans their permission is not legal.
As stated by the poster, this has never happened to me either, perhaps because all of my work, is copyrighted (c).
|
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 08:24:23
|
| Dave, would you mind shedding some light on copywriting ones work product? |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 10:00:11
|
And Dave, while you're at it, could you find out whether Ghostbuster is trying to beat Trump to the punch by copyrighting or trademarking the slogan "You're Fired"?
|
|
|
|
Johnd
USA
110 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 10:57:53
|
All adjusting software allows a "custom text message" on the bottom of each page or on bottom of the prepared estimate. By placing the text [ copyright (c) ] on the bottom of the estimate (page) you have invoked the copyright rules (law) for your work product. Without this simple "term" you could argue there is a "de facto" or assumed copyright, but this text proves you did indeed intend the work product to be copyrighted. Inasmuch as I am not going to give legal advice, maybe someone with a jurus doctorate can come forth (ALANJ or ?) and expound on the protection that copyright laws afford for your work product.
By way of EDIT I want to add, that you should READ and UNDERSTAND any contract or agreement you may sign when you go to work for any vendor or carrier. Some may have language that negate what we may have assumed to be "industry standards" when applied to this situation.
PS: JimF. I thought Ghost only said "You're Fired" to old Dragons Breath. Is he moonlighting?
|
John Durham
sui cuique fingunt fortunam |
Edited by - Johnd on 03/13/2004 11:03:57 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 16:19:49
|
Does the February 20, 2004 letter from ICA (signed by Troy Brown, President), directed to all their field reps, where in part they talk about, ".... in order for us to continue to offer the inside clerical support to assist in .... follow up on supplements .... it has become necessary to offset some of the extreme cost that we incur ...."; have anything positive or negative to add to this issue?
Simply it seems that they are taking an additional $20.00 off of each fee and ".... redirecting that to the office has become a necessity ....".
Will aggressive moves like that by ICA in taking a further $20.00 off of your fee; save you from any and all negative results regarding holdbacks and supplements? |
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 16:22:58
|
| I seriously doubt that. Another ploy by a vendor to offset their profit picture. In the event of an infraction you can bet the adjuster will be brought into the fray. |
|
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 20:15:20
|
It has been 12 years since I received my JD and since I never wanted to practice, I never sat for the Bar. (Sat AT a lot of them but never FOR the bar!) I will dust off the old legal research tools and see what I can find in the way of legal protections for our work products.
CAVEAT: Keep in mind that what I find out can NOT be construed as legal advice! I may decide someday to practice and would not want to get dis-barred before ever getting 'barred' in the first place! Just suggestions! |
Kevin Hromas |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2004 : 22:16:55
|
| Isn't it funny how you can be barred from practicing by being dis-barred? |
|
|
|
MysteryCat
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2004 : 00:00:22
|
Kile, Unfortunately, we can't all work for State Farm (or Farmers, for that matter) on every storm. When we do accept an assignment from a smaller and jickier carrier, what is described above can and does happen. I blame the vendor for not standing up to the carrier. Nationwide raped most of the adjusters that agreed to work for them at Isabel, in one way or another. Some of the vendors who sold us out for the contract are so worried that they will lose their business that they are not investigating the reduction in fee bills the way they should, and are simply passing the reductions on to the adjuster.
You all talk about "Know before you go." How do you prevent a scenario where you ask prior to accepting the assignment about the fee schedule for example and are told that "if it is the same as before then it is comparable to State Farms and that photos are paid at $2.00 per photo". Then when you arrive and accept claims and submit your first billings , you are told that " the fee schedule was renegotiated and the base fees are much smaller and all photos are free. Then Nationwide sends the word down that " we are not totalling ANY roofs or SLOPES in this wind event and we are not concerned with repairabilty." (No wonder, not even the managers wanted to stay for cleanup on this one.) And then you are told that Nationwide wants this storm shut down by a certain date and to turn in some of your files to be redistributed to the latest arriving adjusters (which are being interviewed and hired right up to 2 days before the end of the event.} And then , after waiting for months for your holdback, you discover that some of your fee bills were reduced by Nationwide due to the file being reassigned, Gross loss reduced and fee bill therefore reduced. Calls to both vendor and carrier regarding specific claims gone unanswered by both. This actually happened with Nationwide and EARenfroe...fairly large carrier and vendor. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2004 : 08:29:47
|
'Mystery', maybe I can clarify a couple of the issues you raised, by drawing attention to some factual material that is surfacing from the current re-work of the "Fee Schedule Comparison / Survey".
Perhaps, you are correct with your statement, ".... I blame the vendor for not standing up to the carrier ...."; if that comment is in regards to the fee structures that have stagnated if not fallen in value over the years. But, perhaps that statement is not correct, if you consider the vendor only retained fees that they have built into their schedules, that carrier's pay to the vendors similar to an O&P burden.
There is an increased presence in the 104 different fee schedules available for review, of vendor's charging (and retaining 100%) "admin fees", "office expense fees", file set up fees", and other names within that context. These vendor charged fees range from $15.00 to $39.50 per file, or if it is a T&E file, from 10% to 19.5% of the T&E billing. This is on top of their 35% to 40% of the adjuster / vendor fee split.
The ICA letter referred to in my earlier post, talks of taking an additional $20.00 per file from the fee schedule fee, to cover their "extreme cost ....", where they are unable to convince a carrier to allow them (the vendor) to charge an admin fee for themselves of $20.00 per file.
Is this another trend, or just a continuing slice from the shrinking stale pie?
To your other question, ".... how do you prevent a scenario where you ask .... then when you arrive ....", is tougher under the current shroud that keeps an adjuster uninformed of vendor deals with carriers. However, if there was a way that the fee schedule survey could be made available in a common medium to all who wanted to review it; that might help reduce the opportunity for some of the problems that arise.
However, as Johnd said and Jennifer translated - in another thread - "our wants are increased by knowledge". Sooner or later people have to decide on what they are prepared to do to protect their income streams. Unfortunately, between this thread and a few others, there are numerous current issues that are negatively affecting adjusters. Yes, information is essential to assess the impact on one's career or income streams, but then one must make choices and decisions. There never seems to be much of that happening within this community. |
Edited by - CCarr on 03/17/2004 11:06:55 |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2004 : 11:35:01
|
| delete |
Edited by - trader on 03/20/2004 11:24:31 |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2004 : 12:33:48
|
| I have never worked for Nationwide. I have been called twice. I have never had to cut my wages deep enough to work for the bottom most fee's . |
Edited by - trader on 03/20/2004 11:26:06 |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2004 : 13:02:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by MysteryCat
Kile, Unfortunately, we can't all work for State Farm (or Farmers, for that matter) on every storm. When we do accept an assignment from a smaller and jickier carrier, what is described above can and does happen. I blame the vendor for not standing up to the carrier. Nationwide raped most of the adjusters that agreed to work for them at Isabel, in one way or another. Some of the vendors who sold us out for the contract are so worried that they will lose their business that they are not investigating the reduction in fee bills the way they should, and are simply passing the reductions on to the adjuster.
You all talk about "Know before you go." How do you prevent a scenario where you ask prior to accepting the assignment about the fee schedule for example and are told that "if it is the same as before then it is comparable to State Farms and that photos are paid at $2.00 per photo". Then when you arrive and accept claims and submit your first billings , you are told that " the fee schedule was renegotiated and the base fees are much smaller and all photos are free. Then Nationwide sends the word down that " we are not totalling ANY roofs or SLOPES in this wind event and we are not concerned with repairabilty." (No wonder, not even the managers wanted to stay for cleanup on this one.) And then you are told that Nationwide wants this storm shut down by a certain date and to turn in some of your files to be redistributed to the latest arriving adjusters (which are being interviewed and hired right up to 2 days before the end of the event.} And then , after waiting for months for your holdback, you discover that some of your fee bills were reduced by Nationwide due to the file being reassigned, Gross loss reduced and fee bill therefore reduced. Calls to both vendor and carrier regarding specific claims gone unanswered by both. This actually happened with Nationwide and EARenfroe...fairly large carrier and vendor.
|
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2004 : 13:05:30
|
| These two are the correct size for a good sit in strike. Will you go?. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fee Charge Back
Forum Locked
