| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
 Posted - 04/03/2004 : 22:50:22
|
It has rapidly become apparent that Conman is no different than slimy plaintiffs attorneys and PA's who are just trying to squeeze as much money as possible from the insurance industry. They are probably also the same people who complain that their insurance premiums keep going up and are completely oblivious to the effect that their underhanded, scum of the earth practices have on said premiums.
Conman, I suggest that you go down the the bar closest to your local courthouse and saddle up to the first guy you see wearing a suit and guzzling scotch and discuss business. He is a lawyer and has the same body temperature that you do. Maybe you two reptiles can come up with a plan to bleed a little more out of the insurance industry. You won't find any co-conspirators here. |
 |
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 22:55:41
|
Porco,
Harass someone else. Your questions were answered on page 6...and before that.
|
|
|
|
rbryanhines
22 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 22:57:56
|
Kile, You stated, “As a hypothetical, let's say that the insured is a recently widowed 90 year old woman who is a shut-in with no real friends or family. I think it would probably be reasonable to pay for a GC for just 2 trades because the insured is not capable of hiring the subs on her own. In that case I would see how it would be necessary.
As I eluded to before, why would this insured deserve different consideration than any other Insured. Premiums are not based on the insured’s ability to oversee their repair. The carrier does not owe an elderly person any more for a claim than a some one who is capable of making/overseeing his or her own repair.
Tom Toll is correct. The carriers set the rules for its adjusters. As an adjuster I follow the rules of the carrier I’m working for. However I know that they are not always right/fair. When I feel the carrier is way out of line I will note my concerns to my manager and put it in my-I log. I feel this is my job as an adjuster. It is not my final decision.
Reconstruction Man, I am aware of price increases for labor and materials. If a contractor prices are higher than the carrier’s allowances. I will research the local labor and material rates. I will then check the price components for the repair in my software. If there is a difference between the actual labor and material allowances I can change the actual component prices. My estimate will then reflect these changes. I will then recommend theses changes to management.
Czar, You asked Reconstruction Man “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.”
I can’t speak for him. However, many DOI contend, “The value of contactor’s overhead and profit has been included in the limit of liability for which the insured has paid a premium.” Therefore O&P is due the insured no matter how many trades. The part That Reconstruction Man won’t like is this. That some states DOI contend that because of the before mentioned information O&P is owed even if the insured does not intend to make the repair. This theory leads to the insured receiving O&P without hiring a GC. Courts have concurred with this conclusion. This could be a problem for everyone.
|
|
|
|
alanporco
USA
112 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 22:59:48
|
| I think we know why ReconMan runs his business in Texas. My understanding is that GCs don't have to be licensed. Come on out to California, get your license and then let's see how long you last before it gets yanked. |
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 23:03:06
|
ReCON:
You have answered my question in your pharse "needing general contracting expertise". In most hail/wind roof claims that expertise is not needed. In fact most homeowners that I discuss O/P with on these types of claims are appalled that their contractor is even requesting it. I have recently had 3 homeowners decide to contact separate roofing, siding, and gutter contractors so that the carrier did not even have to consider the additional 20%. Just because they pay for the O/P in their premium, it does not mean that it needs to be pay out in every loss. O/P has its place, but it is not with small menial hail and wind. Save it for a large fire. And Recon stop chasing storms. |
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 23:14:30
|
| I agree, I follow what ever the carrier wants, and if they want to pay O/P I'll write it. My point is, most GC's do not want to get involve in one or two trade jobs, nor do they usually want to get involved with roofing and siding jobs, as there is not enough money in it for them. As a whole, most roofers who claim that they are GC's want to stand behind those two letters and cry that they won't make enough money on the job, although they have done the other 7 houses in the neighborhood paying their non-English speaking labor 6 bucks an hour to do so. I find that 9 out of 10 times if you explain O/P to the insured, they will find a roofing contractor who does siding and gutters, making the need for a GC nonexistent. |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 23:17:38
|
Kile,
You too are going to have to harass someone else.
Before that though, what exactly about TDI logic do you find upsetting? A lot of consumers were ripped off by "carrier instructed" adjusters. Why is that so disturbing to you?
Also, the earlier question, restated, is not a tough one. Please just give a yes or no answer.
"If any "single trade" (carpet, roofing, fencing, etc.) contractor breaks out his / her materials, tax, labor, general conditions, contingency, overhead and profit costs, and shows them to you, do you recognize, and "allow for", their OHP and etc. business cost factors"?
No smoke screens now...Do you or don't you?
|
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 23:18:59
|
ReCON:
No they are built into the pricing. |
|
|
|
alanporco
USA
112 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 23:25:31
|
ReconMan: My questions weren't answered on page 6 or any other page. You never actually answer any question. You just keep slinging more BS. Please take your argument for O&P on all claims to the carriers. Like I said before, I hope they decide to pay O&P on everything. With no changes in the fee schedules, it may increase the loss to the next tier.
If you want the harassment to stop, go away or post topics that have to do with adjusters and our area of expertise. We don't have anything to with rates or premium calculations. We don't decide if O&P is paid.
An adjuster's job is to determine if there is any damage that is covered under the policy and then pay for it. Period. Why is it you can't grasp this relatively simple concept? |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 23:41:59
|
rbryan,
"The part That Reconstruction Man won’t like is this".
(Note: Change "won't" to "will". Consumers do / will too. Also, we are aware of typical premium dollar math and different interpretatons of how "carrier instructed" 1+1=2...sometimes. Premium values anticipate a G.C. oriented business model needed for total RCV / ACV rebuild scenario values of the policyholders property).
"That some states DOI contend that because of the before mentioned information O&P is owed even if the insured does not intend to make the repair. This theory leads to the insured receiving O&P without hiring a GC. Courts have concurred with this conclusion. This could be a problem for everyone".
The problem is going to get larger with verifiable construction business component pricing principles to refer to. Kile, adjust reconstruction business cost losses accordingly.
Funny, apples-for-apples premium values paid back seem to be easy for TDI professionals and others to comprehend. Maybe certain adjusting types feelings are hurt because, well, maybe they have been underpaying claims for a long time, and do not want any reminders of those "carrier instructed" issues...
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 23:52:26
|
Czar,
You stated:
"I find that 9 out of 10 times if you explain O/P to the insured, they will find a roofing contractor who does siding and gutters, making the need for a GC nonexistent".
Wow! 9 out of 10 claims? Times how many claims? Do you explain it like TDI and others do?
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 00:00:16
|
Czar,
A roofing, siding and guttering contracting business model has to have OHP to survive on.
If one roofing, siding and guttering contractor carries more business overhead [WC, Liability etc.] than another, who gets the work?
|
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 00:11:22
|
ReCON:
No I explain that their scumball out of town roofer wants to milk an additional 20% out of their insurance company, and that is when I get that appalled look and that is when they start looking for another hammer swinger. More and more these small property claims are becoming more like my pain in the neck casualty claims, as the roofer playing attorney tries to squeeze every dime that they can. (And don't tell me it is for pain and suffering for putting up with adjusters and homeowners.) Where in the contract of insurance are you as a GC/roofer listed in that contract. On every claim that I meet with a roofer, I look on every page of the contract and never see the roofer listed. Is there some special page that I am missing when I receive the assignment? Are you there to help pay the premium? NO. The contract is between the carrier and insured. We as IA's determine cause, coverage, and the money needed to put the insured back the way they were prior to the loss. If this can be accomplished with a contractor of the insured's choice with out O/P, I do not see the problem.
Also a question:
As a "GC" I would assume that on a 1 or 2 trade job that you sub out, you have a rep from your company at the site the entire time of repair, or are they out trying to drum up additional business signing old ladies to illegal contracts. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 09:10:34
|
| Conman. I did answer your question. If a contractor breaks out his prices and his scope is the same as mine and his prices are higer my answer is, "Sorry, try again." As I told you, he will either have to come down on his price, the insured's will have to pay the difference or they can get another contractor to do it. THAT IS MY ANSWER. I know you can't comprehend it because it is written in straightforward English and doesn't beat around the bush like your wonderful posts. I am told by the company what prices I can pay. I have the responsibility to scope out the damage and then, if necessary discuss any differences in my scope and the contractor's scope. If the contractor can convince me that something else is damaged or needs to be included to effect an appropriate repair, I will add it to my scope. If not he will have to change his or refer to my three options above. I have some leeway to negotiate on scope, but not on price. |
|
|
|
ALANJ
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 09:58:03
|
Kile:
Think about your last post. It almost sounds like price fixing. I believe that is what has gotten NFIP in trouble. Big changes are coming in this business. Where does it say in the contract of insurance that the insurance company has the right to fix prices? No leweway to negotiate on price is price fixing!
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The perils of poor performance: Volume 1
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
