| Author |
 Topic  |
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
 Posted - 04/07/2004 : 08:36:15
|
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.
Will Rogers |
 |
|
|
alanporco
USA
112 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2004 : 09:15:45
|
I have to agree with Kile that once the elections are finished this topic will die quickly. NFIP is run by the Federal gov't, nothing moves quickly in Congress except for their pay raises. Broadening coverage will result in huge premium increases to cover the anticipated claims costs increases and may require a contribution to the reserve kitty. There may be changes coming for NFIP, but I think they will be more in the way of disclosure requirements. Agents will be required to better explain NFIP policies and adjusters will probably have additional requirements in explaining what they are and are not paying for and why. The chances that all 50 states will get together to make unanimous changes throughout all 50 jurisdictions are slim and none. Insurance is still a States' right issue. The Federal gov't has no authority over an individual State's insurance laws and regulations.
|
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2004 : 10:56:10
|
Except that:
All flood policies, whether written direct or through a WYO company are exactly the same.
The WYO policies only differ, in that the carrier's name is on the policy.
The states will have no choice but to accept the FEDERAL policy, irrespective of the name on the policy cover, as this is the one that is on file with each State’s Department of Insurance.
It is agreed that the changes will involve a more thorough training of agents, adjusters and a very layman’s explanation of the policies to the purchaser.
|
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2004 : 18:03:18
|
| States have no jurisdiction over Flood policies. The NFIP was established by an act of congress in 1968. All lawsuits go directly to federal court. As far as the NFIP is concerened states don't exist. The contract is between the insured and the Federal Government, period. |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2004 : 18:28:21
|
| I disagree, A federal jury will hear all the state laws on fair claims practices etc. The jury will also be ask to answer coverage questions if the judge orders, and the amount of damages. What are federal courts for; if they do not protect the citizens of thier state. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2004 : 19:34:12
|
| The trial takes place in a FEDERAL court. It states that in the policy. The state has absolutely no jurisdiction when it comes to flood insurance. FEMA and NFIP don't care a wit about state laws regarding fair claims practices. They don't apply to the NFIP. |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2004 : 09:10:01
|
| Kile: I agree suit is in Federal Court and each state has several Federal courts. Ask an attorney. |
|
|
|
WilburBarnes63026
14 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2004 : 13:20:30
|
Trader......Federal Courts are situated in all states, yet they are not regulated by any state. In fact they reside on "federal reservation property" in each state.
The Federal Courts and associated statutes to federal laws are not regulated by any state. States do not regulate the N.F.I.P. as in fact they are not a true insurance company. While they adopt many of the standards of insurers in its' operations, they are a federal subsidized program which the insured does participate in the payment thereof.
Many insureds get confused on this as well when they first try to bring an action in state court only to be rejected and referred to federal court.
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 09:51:35
|
Policyholders / Consumers / people who are starting to understand what in the world they are actually (actuarially) paying for every month will be the ones to make changes happen by their pocketbook and wallet "vote".
http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/commish/bulletins/b-0045-8.html
We anticipate that mass media news and information sources, coupled with governmental support, will be more than happy to sponsor such consumer / people / business beneficial events.
We anticipate CADO insights will assist them to do so. |
|
|
|
alanporco
USA
112 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 10:29:04
|
| ReconMan: Who is this "we" that anticipates? We don't understand. Are you now suggesting that adjusters go to the carriers and demand the changes YOU propose? |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 10:42:48
|
| Ok I will bite, Recon Man, that bulletin was created in 1998. Why is the O&P problem still a issue if the Texas Department of Insurance practicaly ordered O&P to be a part of all loss settlements. The bulletin mentions possible lawsuits and disciplinary action do you know the outcome or results of these lawsuits or any disciplinary action if they took place. It also seems to me that if this ruling stands in Texas then it would only be a matter of months before the rest of the States followed suit. I am a adjuster in Florida and the instructions from every company I have (ever) worked for are no O&P unless a signed work authorization is provided by the insured and contractor. How can that bulletin have come out in 1998 but no changes have taken place. I would love to include O&P in all my estimates because as you have been informed on this forum in the past we independent adjusters are paid according to a fee schedule based on our estimates of damage. Any correct and legal way to increase my fee schedule that follows company guidelines and the provisions of the insurance policy I am all for. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 11:10:20
|
| The bulletin is only refering to claims when O&P is legitimately necessary. It does not say that O&P should be added to all loss settlements. Let's keep our facts straight. |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 11:31:02
|
| Now I freely admit I am very liberal at interpreting things the way I want them to be interpreted that benefit me the most but I still must not be understanding something in regards to this O&P issue. For example 99% of the claims I handle in Florida are water damages that involve several trades in the completion of repairs. It appears to me this Texas bulletin is ordering O&P to be included in this type of loss without question and with or without a contractors work authorization and the reason being because it is factored into the insureds premium in expectation of being paid out on a loss the insured may file. Why is it that I am still instructed to pay O&P only if a contractor is involved and I have the signed work auth.? Now I am a good employee and do what I am instructed by the hand that feeds me and will continue to do so but I do see some contradictions here in what appears to be the policy or the understanding of the policy at least in Texas and the way adjusters are instructed to handle O&P in general. Is it simply a Texas thing? |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 11:56:22
|
| Well, first of all Wes, contrary to what the citizens of the great state of Texas believe, proclomations by their elected and appointed officials do not have any authority once you leave Texas. You work in Florida, therefore, you are not to be held to the standards of the Lone Star State. Secondly, if a claim does not require several trades to be completed, the services of a GC would not be necessary, such as fence claims or roof only claims. There is no need to include O&P when it is not reasonably necessary. |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 12:20:08
|
| Darn Texans, they get all the good breaks. Well except for this Battle of the Alamo thing and oh yeh the Waco FBIasco and then there were a couple of bad hurricanes and I guess you can thro in a few oil platform/refinery explosions. Well at least they get O&P anyway. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
The perils of poor performance: Volume 1
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
