Forums

Posted By MBoy on 15 May 2009 10:25 AM
Keep in mind there are times when adjusters are instructed to "buy" a roof even if there is no damage. My mentor told me of a one time in 1998 in Texas were he was instructed to purchase roofs in select areas of town. He was told the company made the decision to do this to fuel neighboritis and have people switch carriers.

 

Which I guess was his perogative. It's another matter when they go the other way and a carrier decides to resist the claim regardless of the damage. We in the roofing business know when certain adjusters or consultants are assigned, the carrier doesn't want to pay the claim.

 

I locked horns with a clown adjuster in Lubbock Texas, named Harley something or other. It was on an 1100 SQR shopping center and the guy was just bizarre in his unprofessionalism. Which defied logic because he is past-president of an area adjuster association. I can't prove it but I think the guy was hired specifically to deny the claim. Never mind that similar roofs less than 100' away were also damaged, the guy went into this very strange almost trance-like behavior and refused to reason with me, or the insured. He seemed to think that pointing out a few very minor installation issues around a scupper, somehow absolved the carrier of responsibility for the hail damage claim. He'd point it out and ask me to explain it, and I'd say "Yeah, that's nice but it has nothing to do with the servicability of the roof or the hail damage you owe for." Every time I'd turn around to show him another large strike, he'd be wandering off again looking for some excuse to blame the roofer.

 

When adjusters like that, with seeming reams of credentials, are obviously trying to cheat the insured, it gives your profession a black eye. 

Posted By Ol' Ghost on 15 May 2009 09:40 PM 
... Indeed, every company has stated to always give the benefit of the doubt as this is one of the Guiding Principals of Insurance. 

Posted By Ol' Ghost on 15 May 2009 09:40 PM
I've been a pure property adjuster for the past 33 years and have never been told to cheat anyone. Indeed, every company has stated to always give the benefit of the doubt as this is one of the Guiding Principals of Insurance.

However, I have personally witnessed loud mouth, arrogantly braying, anal orifice contractors pull all kinds of stunts to intentionally play all sides against the middle to benefit their inherent greed.

Fair question, Ghost. I'd guess that 7 times out of 10 the adjuster knows what he's doing and is fair in his adjustment. Obviously no carrier/agent is reckless enough to come out and tell an adjuster to underpay or deny a claim.

 

There are numerous adjusters in this part of the world who have a reputation of skimping on payment. Just as y'all have admitted that an agent sometime subtly suggested that roofs/customer be bought when no damage exists, the same subtlties tell us when an agent/carrier doesn't want to pay a claim. I won'y mention the name of a well known engineering firm or a handful of roof consultants, but you can be assured that when they get involved they will attempt to cheat the insured. Their reputation is well known, and the fact that they never err on the side of the insured tell you that incompetance isn't the issue with them.

 

Would only that they would stick to performing the repairs and not interfere in the assessment of the loss. It is solely the adjusters function to determine the insurable loss, not some hairball contractor.

 

You wish! The adjuster represents the agent's interest and the roofer represents the insured. That's the way it is and it's disengenuous to suggest otherwise. My dad was a claims manager - adjusters are there to control claims, not to hand out money. Agents work very hard to protect their loss ratio.

Posted By ChuckDeaton on 15 May 2009 07:29 PM
I have been adjusting for 35+ years. At some level I have been involved in lots of hail storms, hurricanes and floods and have worked for all of the large insurance companies and lots of little ones, I can truthfully say that I have never, not one time, ever, been told or heard of any other adjuster being told to "cheat" an insured.

I agree with Chuck on this one. In all the years I have adjusted losses, inclusive of all types of losses, I have never been asked to cheat an insured out of a covered cause of loss claim. I have met some very unscrupulous roofing contractors. Fortunately, there are also honest roofing contractors. I have inspected and measured thousands of roofs in my life as an adjuster and have made a few bad calls. I appreciate an honest, tactful roofer bringing this to my attention. I do not respect a roofer who says my 47 squares is incorrect and that it should be 60. Then when I ask him to send me his diagram he tells me he just knows how many squares due to his many years in the business. I can get pretty darn close by guessing how many, but guessing is not a part of my commitment to a vendor or company.

 

Measuring a roof is not rocket science, just laborious in nature and sometime dangerous on steep roofs. I have no intention of arguing with you Mr KoldKing, as that generally only precipitates a delusion of the truth and factual evidence.

Posted By Kold King on 16 May 2009 10:11 AM

... My dad was a claims manager - adjusters are there to control claims, not to hand out money. Agents work very hard to protect their loss ratio.

Posted By Ol' Ghost on 16 May 2009 12:23 PM
That's a lie. I will not allow any outsider to spew such drivel in the mine or any of my other distinguished professionals presence. I can now guarantee any future contacts with you or your ilk will be in an adversarial venue.

Ol' Ghost

What's a lie? It might help if you at least make an attempt at refuting something I said rather than calling it a lie, then giving up in a tantrum.

 

What you said about adversarial though is ironic. Many many years ago I adopted a policy with that word in it. I assume each dealing with the adjuster is going to be adversarial. Doing so avoids the wasted time when I assume the adjuster is being honest with me, but in reality just doesn't have the nerve to tell me he's going to reject the claim while we're both on the roof. Often he will do that from the comfort of his office via fax or e-mail. Thus, my "policy" is to insist that if we're going to disagree about the extent of damage, we're goin to do it right there on the roof where we can see the damage.

Posted By HuskerCat on 16 May 2009 10:57 PM
KK's dad was a claims manager in the 60's...maybe that says a lot more than most of us know.  What we do know, is that the myth still exists that the adjuster is "out to screw you".  I was still in diapers back then, but that may have been the norm for all I know.  Perhaps KK needs to bury the past, and see it for how it really is today without having preconceived notions. 

It's true that I get involved mostly when a claim is disputed, and thus my view may be skewed slightly. That said, even today, there is no shortage of work for a guy who specializes in disputed hail claims. We don't create claims that don't exist - we spend way too much of our time and effort documenting the damage, conducting infrared scans, and writing the reports, for it to make sense for us to waste our time on a claim we aren't 99% sure we can win. If we get involved, it's a legitimate claim.

 

Ol' Ghost thinks I've cast ill on a respected institution. Well, in that regard you're just like roofers in that you'd do yourself a favor by outing the many many bad adjusters, rather than pretending they don't exist. I've been around the block enough times in my 28 years in the industry to not believe everyone who says that the adjuster is always the insured's friend and whatever he pays for is fair. The millions and millions we've secured for the insured, above and beyond what the adjuster wanted to pay, is millions and millions of dollars that would have been cheated from the insured otherwise. So please spare me the sermon about roofers being the problem and the adjusters being the sainted solution.

 

I have little doubt that I'll be booted from this group in short order. It's obvious y'all aren't interested in any opinions that aren't favorable.    

Posted By Kold King on 17 May 2009 08:39 AM
I was working a storm in Lamesa Texas in '88...