| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Stormdame
7 Posts |
 Posted - 04/16/2004 : 10:49:52
|
One of the things I noted while working flood claims in MD this year, the agents had NO understanding of the rating requirments or flood policy. Majority of policies were incorrectly rated, they don't understand "elevated". One policy where risk sat across the street from the bay was rated in an "x" zone. Spoke with the homeowner and they stated the agent was attempting to get their premiums down for them so they could afford the required insurance. Homeowner also stated the agent told them the lowest deductible was $2000.00 I spoke with this agent, he stated the same thing to me. Agent stated he had been selling flood policy for 15 years and he has never written a policy with less than a $2000.00 deductible.
One agent called me screaming because I had not left payment for the inusred. Agent demanded I return and write them a check AT ONCE.
There were agents telling the policy owner to not touch a thing until the adjusters showed up.
Policies were sold where there were muptiple dwelling on property and agents would state all building were covered under the same policy. Had many a broken heart over no coverage on guest homes and garages that also housed offices.
There are places such as Maryland that has never suffered a major flood so written policies have never been reviewed or challanged. When a catastrophe does happen there can be many rude awakenings. There will be many unhappy people.
Not exceeding the decuctible does not mean there is not flood damage. Once a policy holder reports damage the claim should be worked. With high deductibles lots of homeowners want to withdraw their claim. Should we not at least go take our outside photos and report the "known" damage.
PROPER training is a must. Carriers must take responsibility in training their agents propertly. Claims servicing compaines must train their staff properly and hire people who understand and know what is going on.
Something other than a one day "quickie" course needs to be offered to adjusters. What we are now offered is a basic joke. Some of the NFIP GA's need to be put out to pasture. We have all heard Dick Allen's joke, "the world is full of sadness". When you have lost you home and or belongings this is not funny! IT IS SICK. Many of the FEMA inspectors cause more trouble than they are worth. Some adjusters that work flood would like to see an indepth course offered. Learning by the seat of our britches is hard on us.
NFIP adjustes need to learn to call the state insurance boards and see what power a PA has in that state should they have to deal with one. A PA job is to assist the homeowner, this makes them feel they have to right to push, shove and bully their way around. Just learn to work your claim, present the Proof for Signature, good ideal to mail it certified mail, and leave the mess along if the PA wants to be a prick.
Yes, there are problems within the NFIP System. Have been to their home offices and visited with a group of them, they had a difficult time agreeing on policy interputation. This seems to be par within the industry, get a different answer from each person you ask. It does seem that NFIP has been attempting the last few years with their training manual to explain "what they mean", don't laugh gang.
NFIP claims have to be worked and dealt with a little differently than other policies. Some adjusters love the roofs, others love keeping their feet on the ground. So many adjusters have to work whatever is in season.
If you don't mind climbing roofs in tempatures of 100+ than roof claims may be you bag. Should you not care to climb the Dallas/Fort Worth ski slopes then you made need to learn something other than home owners policies.
No system is perfect. All adjusters have room to learn. We all have different answers. It is great to learn from other adjusters.
|
 |
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 11:49:02
|
Alan sez,
"Larry: PAs, and others who seek more than they are entitled to, always cry "bad faith" in an attempt to bully the carrier into paying."
--What is it called when carriers do the same, only in reverse, and underassess a policy covered loss, and pay out less than they are supposed to accordingly?
Our studies indicte good and bad PA's exist. Good PA's like good IA's leave no stone unturned in the consumers favor. Good PA's do not seek more than policy promises state or imply. Good PA's do not charge for their services in a questionable manner.
Fair PA practice exists and is a good thing for consumers, right Alan? |
|
|
|
mtmone
2 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 12:41:34
|
From what I see, this is not a case of someone asking for more than what they are entitled to, but rather receiving what they are entitled to under the terms of the policy. In fact this is what was sent to me in writing by NFIP branch chief Mr. Plaxico…….
First:
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:38 AM
To: Shortley, James; Plaxico, Charles
Cc: Lowe, Anthony
Subject: Insurance Issues
Dear Mr. Shortley,
I left a message with Dorothy Toolan who works for Dare County as their information director. The county has various means of communication in place already (since they issue evacuation notices, re-entry procedures, public hearing notices, ect.) She would be a great one to get the word out.
I think our concern, like yours, is how we direct the forms once they start coming in...perhaps a central fax number to send them to? I thought I remembered that there would be an 800# available and that there would be> outreach centers staffed in the areas most affected as a place policyholders could go to have questions answered? She could announce all
of this information on TV, Radio, Website, ect.
In talking with Mr. Jim Meads our county floodplain manager, he thought that it would be helpful to publish the clarification on the "first floor issue" so that the previous information relayed by Mr. Cook the NFIP general adjuster ("the coverage starts where the pilings stop") in a televised commissioners meeting could be recanted.
Mr. Cook was interpreting that the first elevated floor in a piling construction was the one above where the pilings stop (may be banded at that point) without acknowledgement of the first floor being legally permitted and built above the base flood elevation, when in actuality (and on the elevation certs) that floor above the banding is the second or even third livable floor. The definition of an "elevated" building is a building with no basement that has it's lowest elevated floor raised above ground level by posts, piers, pilings, columns, shear walls, or foundation walls. The elevated bottom floor that has pilings running up through it, is elevated above ground level and the base flood elevation by pilings....or else it would fall down. As Mr. Meads pointed out, "all buildings are enclosures".
Our best style of construction is a piling construction given the flooding hazard in our area. In carrying the pilings past the first floor, strength is added to entire structure both for flood and also for wind strength thus going a long way towards mitigating possible storm damage.
We did not lose any homes that were built in this manner.
If we could get the first floor issue clarified, that would be a good point to start with addressing the inadequate payments since many first floors were paid out as basements thus limited coverage. Please advise
ASAP.
Thank you for assisting us on this!
Sincerely, Beth
Then:
From: Plaxico, Charles
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 5:07 PM
To: 'bethm@midgettrealty.com'
Cc: Shortley, James; Mills, Norma; Lowe, Anthony
Subject: FW: Insurance Issues
This is in response to your inquiry below regarding an elevated building's
lowest elevated floor, i.e., where full coverage begins. I agree with you
that full coverage begins at the lowest elevated floor even if the pilings
extend beyond that floor. Therefore, it is not correct to say that full coverage only begins at the floor that is on top of the pilings in such a building. Please let me know of any claims that you are aware of that were
settled contrary to this, and we will have them reopened for further adjustment.
|
Edited by - mtmone on 04/16/2004 12:43:52 |
|
|
|
alanporco
USA
112 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 14:53:58
|
ReconMan: I left the PA business because of the low lifes I found myself associated with. Their only aim was to get the insured to sign with them so they could collect their fee. (Let's not get me started on all the lies, scams, kickbacks from contractors, etc. that PAs are involved in - IT'S WHY I GOT OUT!) There are undoubtedly a few good PAs in the world, but they are extremely rare. Greenspan Company in L.A. is the only one I know.
As an IA, I look at every claim as though it were my own. With my understanding of the policy and the claims process, how would I want this handled? And that's what the customer gets.
Find fault with that, ReconMan.
You seem to forget that our compensation increases as the size of the claim increases. Therefore, it behooves us to find the maximum that we can pay for. If we don't add O&P or any other thing you don't like/care for/ rant about(yes, you rant), it is at the carrier's direction. So, once again, I will try to help you understand that we, as adjusters, are at the bottom of the ladder, we perform are job per the parameters set by our employers. You need to carry those arguments up the ladder a few rungs. |
|
|
|
Dragon
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 16:42:48
|
| I am new to this site. I have 30 years experiance in repairing Auto and as a Staff Adjuster for one of the major carriers .In the Auto world we have shops which have the same conserns and attitude as RECONMAN.The use WreckCheck and Diminished Value as the basis for their arguments. The one thing I have noticed with these shops is that they talk about helping the consumer but any additional monies generated by their tatics do not go to the consumer. They only go to the shop to increase it's take. Note these shops do not pay their techs any more than other shops are paying for their services. So my question is who is benefiting from their pratice. Yall have a good day. Dragon |
|
|
|
Red
24 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 20:04:35
|
| Dragon don't know what you agenda is but your profile says your 13 yet you indicate you have over 30 years experience. perhaps you would like to explain. and ReconMan we know what his agenda is he hasn't changed since his first post here. Please do not continue to post under this thread unless it has something to do with the original topic, and not use it as a soapbox. We Really don't want to see this thread locked up due to ramblings on about the same stuff that has been dragged thru the dirt. I know you want your soapbox so please use a different thread. This one is important to some of us that actually worked with these people. Thanks |
|
|
|
Dragon
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 21:21:13
|
| Sorry Red. Thirteen years as anAuto Tech, 13 years as a Staff Adjuster for Allstate and 2 years as a shop manager and now Starting my business as an I.A.It is just that I see similar processes and politics from RECONMAN and find them to be self serving.DRAGON. HAve a nice day. |
|
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 22:26:56
|
Red: I had made a similar comment on another thread about someone being 13 years of age based on their profile. I was politely informed by one of the moderators that there is a glitch in the software which sometimes causes the age to display as 13 no matter what age was entered.
Stormdame: Nice post, very enlightening about the depth of the problems with the NFIP. But, problems are made to be solved and it is nice to see that NFIP is trying to be responsive, rather than the old bullying attitude they used to portray.
Larry O: I guess the slab is not an elevated floor. |
Larry Wright |
Edited by - LarryW on 04/16/2004 22:38:09 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 22:44:28
|
"The definition of an "elevated" building is a building with no basement that has it's lowest elevated floor raised above ground level by posts, piers, pilings, columns, shear walls, or foundation walls."
Based on this definition, wouldn't a house built slab on grade, even if pilings were sunk and soil built up around those pilings to bring the ground up to BFE, be considered a non-elevated building. If the ground is brought up to it then it is no longer "above ground level". |
|
|
|
Admin
547 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 22:51:49
|
off topic--
I'm not aware of a glitch in the age, most users do not click calendar icon to set their age. The default is 13 based on coppa requirements. Sorry for the trouble. |
|
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 23:45:32
|
Kile: yup!
Roy: Oh! |
Larry Wright |
|
|
|
Red
24 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 00:42:33
|
| Kile you are right. That is what the definition is and I also feel as you do what ever is BFE that is basically where coverage starts. If it is a slab then that is where coverage begins. There is something in the back of my mind that goes back to Hurricane Andrew. There were some homes with pilings in the ground and backfilled and with slab and there was some coverage issue with it. I wish I could remember all the details that was involved but I just don't. Is there anyone out there that worked any flood claims in Andrew that was involved in the coverage issues of this nature that can give us more insight. |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 09:54:47
|
My understanding has always been that "grade" refers to the "natural grade" and not a "built up grade" or "ground".
This came up in a basement claim I handled. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 10:06:39
|
Chuck, the problem comes in when you have no way for water to flow unimpeded under the structure. That is why the structure is required to be elevated. If you build up dirt around the pilings, tidal surge can then ride up that mound of earth and enter the building or even level it, where as if the dirt wasn't there the water would just flow right under the building never even touching it.
That is why buildings are required to be elevated. If they are not then the risk is greater. |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 10:55:35
|
| I do not see where it says the lowest elevated floor with space under it. A slab on dirt that is elevated is still less risk then one below the BFE. The question was answered very clearly, now if they would just look at what they pay us!!! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"Isabel", is a Hot Potato headed behind?
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
