| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
 Posted - 04/03/2004 : 18:35:23
|
| Conman, I have never had a contractor break down any prices for me. It is like pulling teeth to get a roofer to include the number of squares the estimate is based on. Frankly it wouldn't matter to me if they came to me and showed me their breakdown. If the contractors estimate is higher than mine and the scope is the same I'd tell the insured to get some more estimates. I can't negotiate on price. The company sets the prices and my job is to come to an agreed upon scope. If my scope and the contractor's scope is the same and his price is significantly higher than mine one of three things needs to happen. He will either come down on his price, the insured will get another contractor or the insured will pay the difference. It's that simple. |
 |
|
|
alanporco
USA
112 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 18:37:27
|
| ReconMan: Now I question your ability to read. Who ever said "best practices" about anything? What are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 18:58:11
|
This is really a simple matter. If the Company says do not pay OH & P on less than three trades, that is what we are required to do. If they tell us to pay OH & P on one trade, that is what we do.
OH&P is not owed unless the insured has a signed contract with a GC. Why would we owne OH&P if the insured does the work himself or subs it out. Each individual trade has their OH&P builit into their pricing. This issue has been thrown around for the 44 years I have been a licensed adjuster and will continue to be thrown around until it is incorportated into the policy, and that ain't gonna happen. No where in any policy does it mention overhead and profit. We owe to put the insured back whole and if they retain a GC, then the GC is entitled to OH&P. A one trade contractor has his profits built into his price.
This topic could be argued till hell freezes over, but will not change the fact that we are directed by the companies, not the PA's, or contractors, or any other entity, unless the DOI for that certain state gives a written directive and the companies approve it. Thats a fact ladies and gentlemen. |
|
|
|
ALANJ
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 19:12:11
|
Kile:
I propose that an insured sends you a sworn statement in proof of loss on a hail claim. You do not dispute that hail damaged the roof. However, the proof is for the cost of replacement plus OH&P. You must either accept or reject the proof in a letter to the insured. What do you do and how? Where is Jim when we need him? |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 19:21:14
|
| Simple. I consult with management and handle it according to the response I get back. In other words, drop back and punt. |
Edited by - KileAnderson on 04/03/2004 19:23:01 |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 21:25:15
|
Porco,
None of our postings have ever assumed that adjusters directly set constuction costs / premium values.
Carriers may try to manipulate / "fix" our market values with gathered claim settlement data, reflecting oddball construction business type practices Kile mentioned, but sustainable construction business models actually set the various, and defendable, [construction business operation components] values adjusters work with via Xactimate, IntegriClaim, etc. estimating programs.
We do assume though that claim loss data (adjusters manufacture) is eventually helpful in refining the underwriting / premium rate setting pipeline. The makers of IntegriClaim and Xactimate both advertise those points in their "Component Based" estimating program ads.
Also, it is always assumed that in a RCV / ACV structured premium , in any region of the country, that general contracting oversight type expertise brought a structure into existance and may be equally necessary for a complete loss / rebuild claim scenario.
Those facts, coupled with [sustainable] union / open shop reconstruction business model costs, eventually helps establish rational premium rates. Even insurance agents / brokers have synergenic# (contractor / carrier / adjuster / underwriter) loss-reconstruction-premium cost estimating software available.
Xactimate quote from Brad Jackman:
"It just makes sense that the company whose pricing# is used most often for claims# also provides up-front valuation tools# for the underwriting market#," states Brad Jackman, Executive Vice President of Xactware. "Many companies# have wanted to better match their underwriting data# with the claims industry data# for years. Now they can because it's the same data."
http://www.xactware.com/news_120902.htm
#Since G.C. business model costs have been factored in, it should not matter if a policyholder themself picks the phone up to hire a specific single contracting trade needed, or they call a general contracting expert to handle a single trade needed. G.C. factored premium values uniquely allow for both scenarios to be "fair" and competive claims estimating practice.
The G.C. business model has been [mathematically] carrier anticipated and paid for by policyholders and can be [competively / inherently] justified.
Any less math in a claim settlement approach is an improper windfall for the carrier. Charging for G.C. OHP and not returning it is illegal. Indemnity protection premium values-to-loss values / claim compensation priciples, and expected settlement practices, in the TDI bulletin, are explained in detail.
http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/commish/bulletins/b-0045-8.html
-Our opinion.
Question:
Could using carrier instructed "2-3 trades or more are needed before a G.C. is indicated" claim settlement philosophy math, throw off actual P&L [Construction Components Costs Loss] totals that need to exist for anticipating more sound actual underwriting practice-to-real premium values and (ethical) cash / asset load reserves?
|
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 21:33:43
|
Recon:
I am trying to dumb down your post so that I can understand. From what I read, you feel that consideration for O/P is built into the premium paid by the insured, and when they have a one trade loss, you (through the insured) are owed that O/P. If this is what your lengthy post ment, can you explain why you feel this way. |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 21:57:25
|
Czar,
TDI [necessarily] defined that all RCV / ACV policy premium dollars pre-anticipated values "explain" logical and legal claim settlement values:
http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/commish/bulletins/b-0045-8.html
Since G.C. business model costs have been factored in, it should not matter if a policyholder themself picks the phone up to hire a specific single contracting trade needed, or they call a general contracting expert to handle a single trade needed. G.C. factored premium values uniquely allow for both scenarios to be "fair" and competive claims estimating practice.
Any less dollar math in a claim settlement approach is an improper windfall for the carrier.
Charging premium for G.C. OHP and not returning it is illegal. Again, a TDI, and common sense, apples-for -apples math equation.
-Our Opinion (Also) |
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 22:03:11
|
| If I remember looking through additional posts, your company is a roofing company, yet you call yourself a GC. This is the problem that I have. Just because one has a boat, it does not make him a captain, the same as just because you have business card that says GC, it does not make it so. |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 22:19:37
|
Czar,
One specialty [rudder guided] focus is reroofing projects. We are also very well versed in orchestrating [multi-trade discipline oriented] general reconstruction projects. |
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 22:25:24
|
| Then why does every roofing contractor I meet with have ABC Roofing, siding, and gutters listed on their card, and then only mention that they are a GC when it is time to discuss O/P. And yes I ask for a copy of their cert. |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 22:27:43
|
Certain general contractors are not "new structures only" business oriented.
A "different breed" of general construction management expertise is needed for the more complex Reconstruction field. Many construction business entreprenuers come and go in this market because of its intricate nature. |
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 22:31:26
|
| My question still is, even if O/P is built into the premium, why do you feel that an additional 10/10 is owed on top of the O/P built into the pricing for a 1 or 2 trade job. |
|
|
|
alanporco
USA
112 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 22:39:51
|
ReconMan: What are you trying to get to that has anything to do with adjusting? Adjusters do not manufacture claim loss data, we adjust losses based on the guidelines provided by the carrier. Claim Loss data that is ultimately used in rate calculations is produced by the carriers and includes more than just claims settlement costs. Everything you bring up has to do with the carriers. Take your propositions, theories and conspiracies to them. Adjusters do not set policy. If we don't follow the policies of the carrier, we find ourselves working for someone else.
Do you ask your subcontractors to include O&P when they bid on a job? |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 22:49:05
|
Czar,
Because the premium is structured for those values to be paid.
A full loss, needing general construction expertise has been anticipated in the value of a policy. Smaller loss construction issues have not removed G.C. expertise dollars built into the premium value.
A G.C. business budget has been established in the premium. Paying back a smaller commensurate piece of the G.C. budget via a [roofing only project] to a G.C. does not overpay premium paid / owed OHP values.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
The perils of poor performance: Volume 1
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
