| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Judi8703
USA
15 Posts |
 Posted - 03/23/2004 : 15:30:41
|
This past fall one of our adjusters went to Virginia to work storm claims from Isabel.
The vendor he worked for paid a flat fee for services for which he received 65%. However, he didn't receive anything for the pictures he took as part of his adjustment service.
Since then he has spoke with other adjusters who worked for another vendor, but still for the same insurer. They received the same flat fee for adjusting services, but they got 65% of $2.00 per picture.
He called the vendor he worked for and they told him that they had forgotten about the pictures and it was too late to re-bill the insurer for just photo's.
Does this sound normal? |
|
|
Janice Toll
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2004 : 16:00:17
|
| No, this does not sound normal, IMHO. I don't know who the vendor is, but I find it very hard to believe any vendor "forgot" to charge for photos. |
Janice R. Martin-Toll |
 |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2004 : 17:28:45
|
Judy, a vendor 'tale', I suspect. But, what is critical to assess the "normality" of your question; is the specifics of the fee schedule in place at the time, specific to that vendor / carrier.
The revised "fee schedule survey / comparison" will have as one of its addendums, a "photograph allowances" summary.
From the 104 different fee schedules reviewed, where the issue of photographs is specifically addressed in the fee schedule, it will be part of this addendum summary / review.
So far, it is a 3 page addendum, and those that receive the revised survey / comparison can decide whether photograph allowances are part of the "meat and potatoes" of a fee schedule, or part of the "gravy"; or unfortunately a menu item not available for the adjuster to share in.
So far, there are 15 categories of photograph allowances, from "all pictures included in schedule fee", to "2 pictures included in fee, others at $2.00 each"; to the possible meat and potatoes interpretation of "$2.00 each for all photographs".
If there was a common medium - within CADO for example - for this revised report to be made available, all those interested in the "fee schedule survey / comparison" and its addendums, could have access to it. |
|
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2004 : 22:12:21
|
| If the contract the adjuster signed with the vendor, calls for the adjuster to be paid, then this is very simple: The vendor should pay the adjuster. Perhaps the vendor has E&O coverage? |
Larry Wright |
|
|
|
alanporco
USA
112 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 00:12:42
|
| The vendor may not get a 35% share on photos. One vendor that I have worked for gets none of the fee for photos, they are billed as an expense, which is paid in total to to the adjuster. Therefore, the vendor may not want to upset the carrier with a supplemental billing for which the vendor receives only grief from the carrier for the late billing. |
|
|
|
danguyer
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 06:51:41
|
I agree with Alan. Photos and additional mileage are to be billed as an expense under supplemental billing. Expense checks are usually paid on a weekly basis for closed files that have cleared.
Mileage is not to be confused with drive time. Most vendors offer their clients free mileage up to a certain distance which can range from 25-50 round trip miles from your base. Mileage that exceeds the allotted free distance amount is usually charged to the vendor at a rate of about $0.35/mile. Drive time also can be charged for additional drive time over the allotted mileage amount which is billed on an hourly rate with the service fee.
Most vendors ask that mileage be prorated to other files on that day. However, if you are working for more than one client proration is applied only to those file worked on that day for that particular client.
Expense checks can range from $250-$1,000 weekly depending on the vendor and the required driving distances. That's why it is important to review your vendor's fee schedule before working a storm.
|
Dan Guyer |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 07:25:01
|
Dan, you suggest that the "free", i.e. included mileage ranges from 25 - 50 round trip miles. You further suggest that mileage that exceeds the inclusive allotment is "usually" charged at .35 / mile.
Unfortunately, the figures that you provide are not the norm for "mileage allowances", at least not within the review of 104 fee schedules that are part of the revised survey.
There will be an addendum to the survey to segregate and review "mileage allowances", as are found on the reviewed schedules.
So far, 27 different "mileage allowance" regiments / schemes / or plans are noted; with an extreme range of variance.
Aside from a growing list of schedules that state they do not have any allowance for mileage, there are a considerable amount of schedules that utilize 5 or more 'allowance plans' where the "free" or included mileage is 100 miles, many more schedules where the base figure is 75 or 50 miles; and only a very few schedules where the base included mileage is limited to under 50 miles.
Then, the alloted rate per mile after the included base mileage, is another story of extremes. |
|
|
|
rbryanhines
22 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 09:00:35
|
| Is the above post referring to Fee schedules and not T&E? |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 10:37:58
|
Bryan, yes, my above post on "mileage allowances" refers to vendor / carrier gross loss based fee schedule plans in place.
Remember though, as you stir this around in your mind and work with your calculator, that you first must determine in which way the vendor deals with these various allowances that may appear on the fee schedule; be they pictures, or mileage, or whatever.
Do you get a percentage (i.e. your split of 60% or 65%) of the allowable item charge (eg pictures or mileage), or do you get 100% of your allowable and billable file expenses?
Unfortunately, 100% of "10 pictures included in fee, others at $1.00 each"; can be much less than 60% of "all required pictures at $2.00 each", or even a split of something in between those two extremes.
The same principal applies to all expense type items that are part of any fee schedule. |
|
|
|
danguyer
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 10:54:36
|
Clayton, I was using the $0.35/mile and the 25-50 miles as an example for some vendors. The photo charge can vary as you have stated. Do you have a list of vendors that we can review? I must have missed that list in a previous post. Clayton, thanks for all the good work you have done.
|
Dan Guyer |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 12:29:44
|
Dan, you did not miss "that list" in a previous post. The addendums that I have spoke of here are a work in progress and they will be part of the revised "fee schedule survey / comparison" that will be sent to those who contributed to its contents, and that will likely be in May. The details of this project and of the original report, and how a person will get a copy of the report, are found in the thread "fee schedule survey / comparison"; likely found on page 2 of this General Forum.
At this point, 27 people will receive a copy of the report when it is available, as they are the 27 people who contributed the 46 different fee schedules for the first report last October, and the 58 additional and different fee schedules for the current revision / update project; which will include 7 different addendums focusing on: mileage allowances, photograph allowances, 2 storey & steep allowances, telephone allowances, time & expense summary, day rate summary, and a vendor retained administrative surcharge summary.
I have no idea how many people may have any interest in a report of this nature, beyond the 27 whose efforts provided the fodder for the reports, and the 100 or so who didn't but have asked for a copy of the report to which I have declined, as per the agreement in the noted thread.
However, I will again state that it would suit me fine if the report was available in a common medium for all to access it and review it at will. That is where it belongs, but in the absence of that, I am not sending it to other than who bothered to contribute to it; and with no disrespect for the 27 contributors it is regretably an acknowledged large waste of my time for just 27 people.
There was / is no reason why a hundred, or hundreds of claims people did not contribute one or more fee schedules for the purpose of this project, as was addressed many times in the thread 98% dedicated to this project. Not one of the 104 fee schedules in my possession contain the words or phrase: "do not copy", "do not distribute", "do not share", "top secret", "confidential"; etc etc - not one of them.
I had originally hoped last year that this would have been my ongoing contribution as a work in progress to and within CADO. |
|
|
|
Judi8703
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 14:16:10
|
Clearly this has gotten WAY off topic, so let me please bring it back to what I was asking. You can go to the other topics regarding Mr. Carr's fee survey and etc.
I'm looking for a specific answer to a specific question that came up. Can the adjuster insist that the vendor pay him for his photo's regardless of weather the vendor desires to re-bill the insurer? There was no written contract between the two just an understanding of the percentage split 65/35. |
|
|
|
Todd Summers
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 15:16:17
|
| Judith, the adjuster most certainly should have read the fee schedule (otherwise known as the contract) at least prior to his/her first billing. The vendors mgmnt. should have caught any errors in those first few files (assuming the files were being reviewed before submitting to carrier). None of this having happened, I'm not sure anyone deserves to be paid after the fact. I doubt the adjuster has a leg to stand on w/o a written contract between him/her and the vendor or if it would even be worthwhile to pursue. I mean how much money are we talking about? Versus any costs to obtain it, i.e. legal fees, attorneys fees, lost work etc.? Maybe he/she should just chalk it up as a learning experience, in more ways than one, and move on. Perhaps he/she could even post the entire story here and name the players so that others may learn from it as well. |
|
|
|
Todd Summers
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 15:21:42
|
| Having said all that, it may be that the carrier would have no problem paying the supplemental fee bills (IF photos at $2.00 was in the contract with this vendor) but the vendor is willing to write it off to save looking like idiots that they missed it. After all it is most likely paid 100% to the adjuster as expense, as mentioned before. I have never had a vendor take a percentage of the photos. |
Edited by - Todd Summers on 03/24/2004 15:23:55 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 15:24:06
|
Way off topic you say Judy. The chief playground monitor would probably paraphrase it as being somewhat grey, and I think it was explained to me as having something to do with the natural flow of the conversation. It is frustrating, isn't it, and I apologize for being a participant in that verbal frolic that detoured from your opening post.
Back to what you were asking, which was only one thing, that being your last sentence of your opening post; ".... does this sound normal?". Janice said no, I suggested no, Larry I think suggests no, and I'm not sure what alanporco thought in regards to your question.
However, relative to your last post, it does seem unusual that there would be no written agreement or contract of any kind, between the claims person and the vendor; but I am confused with your statement, ".... one of our adjusters ....". Whether it be a cat or any other type of claims deployment / engagement, how do the parties agree or acknowledge what each other will do or will not do or expect from each other? But alas, that is off topic. If there was no written agreement that addressed compensation issues, it is likely wishful thinking that the claims person will see any contribution from the vendor for photo expenses incurred.
Back to your opening post, ".... spoke with other adjusters who worked for another vendor, but still the same insurer ....", if you allow me to wander a bit, I'll suggest that has absolutely nothing to do with the specific vendor in the scenario that you are relating. That is, for example, companies like Nationwide, Travelers, Hartford, Zurich and others, have vendor agreements with more than one claims vendor, and those agreements when they are expressed as fee schedules; are quite different from each other vendor. |
|
|
|
alanporco
USA
112 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2004 : 22:53:21
|
In response to Mr Carr's post regarding my opinion on whether this is "normal." I'm don't feel I have enough experience. I have worked only for Farmers/Wardlaw except for Isabel. At Isabel, NC Farm Bureau didn't pay for photos (but their fee schedule and file requirements were great). Farmers pays $2 a photo for the first 10; $1 therefore upto 30 total photos. They will allow more if the file warrants it, it's their call.
When I first got into CAT work, I was told that photos should cover my daily expenses (motel, food,etc.)
The problem here is that it is probably too late to do anything. Someone earlier suggested that the adjuster just take this as a learning experience. That is good advice. At the next storm this adjuster will sure to find out what the details are regarding photos. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Who pays for pictures?
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
