Forums

I could live with that. This would make it easier to work in states like NM, NY, MI, FL, and CA.

Yet, I'm sure those and other states would fight it. Once you set up a department to track charges for new licenses, renewal fees, and apply fines, this is a real money-maker for the state; especially TX. Even more than the issue of it being a moneymaker, I suspect politicians would recoil at the subtle reduction in state powers.

Is this something that's passed already?

Jud G.,

this bill has not much a chance of passing. It will most likely never get past Committee and an even lesser chance of passage. But would be a great thing if it did.........

I voted no, and here is why:

I personally do not see another exam put together by the states as helpful. I remember very specifically that the exam I had to take had very little to do with establishing the ability to actually adjust losses, and had a whole lot more (like 80% of the exam) to do with being a L&H agent. I was fortunate enough to have read absolutely everything that I could get my hands on about the industry in it's entirety, so while the exam was not all that difficult to pass, I walked out of the exam wondering if the state had any idea at all what exactly it is that adjusters do. Others that I know had tests a lot more focused on adjusting, but those tests only had a focus on coverage and deductibles, and there was virtually nothing to ensure that a potential adjuster could actually generate a detailed estimate or make genuine coverage determinations in tricky scenarios.

I do agree that some form of standardization and manner of qualifying adjusters is needed, and I would be supportive of legislation that implemented that standardization, but I also think that the legislation that the OP has posted is misguided (though true reciprocity across the Union does have it's appeal.. and it could save many adjusters thousands of dollars and many hours in licensing costs and paperwork). 

I think that new adjusters should be required to go through an established apprenticeship program, much as a real estate appraiser, plumber or electrician does, prior to becoming "fully licensed". Being able to pass a test on ethical behavior and basic coverage knowledge (if you manage to get a test about adjusting) is one thing; knowing how to properly indemnify an insured and protect the insurance carrier from bad faith and/or over-payment is another. Making it mandatory for a new adjuster to participate in an apprenticeship program would be a good way to ensure that once the newbie adjuster goes out into the real world, they at least have a solid understanding of the fundamentals.

Posted By AcceleratedAdjuster on 12/01/2013 6:18 AM

...

I think that new adjusters should be required to go through an established apprenticeship program, much as a real estate appraiser, plumber or electrician does, prior to becoming "fully licensed". Being able to pass a test on ethical behavior and basic coverage knowledge (if you manage to get a test about adjusting) is one thing; knowing how to properly indemnify an insured and protect the insurance carrier from bad faith and/or over-payment is another. Making it mandatory for a new adjuster to participate in an apprenticeship program would be a good way to ensure that once the newbie adjuster goes out into the real world, they at least have a solid understanding of the fundamentals.

Your comments in the first two (2) paragraphs are great, and I agree.  State adjuster license tests are ridiculous.  They do very little to quantify future adjusters' potential to take care of the elected officials' constituents when claims roll in.

What if federalization produced a test that was so rigorous that adjusters would have to undergo a 'claims-specific' apprenticeship in order to prepare for it? 

If something like this happened, would you feel any different about the bill?

Jud and AA,

A few years ago, I wrote here on CADO and on "other" sites about an Independent Adjuster Apprentice Project.

In that discussion, I proposed emulating what the state of Florida has required for its newly licensed public adjusters, they require a minimum of one year of apprenticing under a licensed PA firm before they are eligible to become a fully licensed claims adjuster. Until that time they held a "provisional" permit.

Doing that with our newly licensed brethren on the IA side and in all states, would not stop all issues, but would be a fantastic leap in the right direction.

Not long after I wrote that, I went into management with an unnamed IA firm (after 1 year of rehab from falling from a ladder)

That firm gave me the opportunity to put my money where my mouth is. I designed and implemented the Apprentice Project on behalf of that firm. That firm gave me the opportunity to bring in newly licensed claims adjusters and have them apprentice under their senior staff adjusters.

Whilst not perfect, it did launch the careers of half a dozen adjusters that are still working today (3 years later)

Granted this was but a single vendor and instead of 1 year, I designed a 3 month program but it worked.

Could that happen on a much grander scale? Sure it could and I am working on a new project (on  a much larger scale) Yet I am akin to a screenwriter trying to sell a script to a movie studio. I have had multiple vendors express interest (or at least feign interest to get me off the phone lol) Only time will tell, but I got it to work once before ( albeit on a small scale) with the support and graciousness of that unnamed vendor.

Garnering the support of the 32 some odd states that license adjusters to institute a "provisional" license is an entirely different problem, yet is not impossible (for those willing to try again and again) 

 

Posted By AcceleratedAdjuster on 12/01/2013 6:18 AM

I voted no, and here is why:

I personally do not see another exam put together by the states as helpful. I remember very specifically that the exam I had to take had very little to do with establishing the ability to actually adjust losses, and had a whole lot more (like 80% of the exam) to do with being a L&H agent. I was fortunate enough to have read absolutely everything that I could get my hands on about the industry in it's entirety, so while the exam was not all that difficult to pass, I walked out of the exam wondering if the state had any idea at all what exactly it is that adjusters do. Others that I know had tests a lot more focused on adjusting, but those tests only had a focus on coverage and deductibles, and there was virtually nothing to ensure that a potential adjuster could actually generate a detailed estimate or make genuine coverage determinations in tricky scenarios.

I do agree that some form of standardization and manner of qualifying adjusters is needed, and I would be supportive of legislation that implemented that standardization, but I also think that the legislation that the OP has posted is misguided (though true reciprocity across the Union does have it's appeal.. and it could save many adjusters thousands of dollars and many hours in licensing costs and paperwork). 

I think that new adjusters should be required to go through an established apprenticeship program, much as a real estate appraiser, plumber or electrician does, prior to becoming "fully licensed". Being able to pass a test on ethical behavior and basic coverage knowledge (if you manage to get a test about adjusting) is one thing; knowing how to properly indemnify an insured and protect the insurance carrier from bad faith and/or over-payment is another. Making it mandatory for a new adjuster to participate in an apprenticeship program would be a good way to ensure that once the newbie adjuster goes out into the real world, they at least have a solid understanding of the fundamentals.

........................................................................................

AA,

when you state "true reciprocity" between the states, are you referring to simply recognizing said non-resident adjuster is a licensed professional from their home state and as such they are qualified to work in our state as well (without the need of a non-resident license)? I imagine most states would not want to forego that stream of revenue, but stranger things have happened

Otherwise, folks licensed in their home state DO have reciprocity with the approx. 32 states that license adjusters (provided they submit the application and application fee / background checks / etc...)

One of the biggest problems I see with regard to newly licensed adjusters are those without a "true" home state, yet they hold a non-resident Texas/Florida license. Those folks are NOT allowed to obtain any reciprocity sans a handful of states.

Training vendors need to clarify that prospective licensees (provided they reside in a state that does NOT license adjusters) the Texas/Florida license will ONLY hold reciprocity for those folks who designate Texas/Florida/Indiana as their home state

Posted By Jud G. on 12/01/2013 10:10 PM

What if federalization produced a test that was so rigorous that adjusters would have to undergo a 'claims-specific' apprenticeship in order to prepare for it? 

If something like this happened, would you feel any different about the bill?

I might. Let's look at the situation now:

Anyone can secure an adjuster license with relative ease. If their state requires a certain amount of education prior to licensing, they can go to a test preparation class that counts as that education, and take the test in a week. In my home state, you don't even have to do that; you can just go take the test. 

This is not a field with little responsibility or accountability, as I am sure we all know. We are literally not only appraising the value of a risk (with ITV or Co-Insurance reports), but we are taking it a step further and also determining how to make people whole again through BI, BPP, ALE, Loss of Rents and so on.

In essence, we as adjusters must act as appraisers, accountants, salvors and multi trade professionals (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, GC's and so on). The majority of these trades require a certain level of experience and proficiency prior to actually becoming licensed. Most states have a 2 year apprenticeship to be a real estate appraiser and the skilled trades are even more regulated. A number of states say "2 years and an electrician or plumber allows you to be a residential journeyman, while 4 years are required to be a commercial journeyman". Accountants and salvors are really the only ones out of the bunch that do not require an apprenticeship in most states.

Do you know how many resumes my office gets when I go posting my ads just here and on ClaimsPages? Care to take a guess what percentage of them represent themselves as "experienced" adjusters with less than 2 years and only a handful of claims under their belt, if that? As a homeowner and business owner, I certainly believe that if I do file a claim with my carrier, I am entitled, at the minimum, to a professional taking a look at whatever it is I happen to be presenting. As the owner of an adjusting firm, I believe that the same professionalism that I would expect from my insurance carrier(s) should be a mandatory facet of the claims process. I don't want some random noob who just got licensed trying to figure out how my buildings are constructed so that they can generate an incomplete estimate or a bad report, and I think that every insured feels the same way and deserves a professional adjuster when a claim is filed. 

I am usually the last person in the world to call for new regulations, so please understand that I do not make such statements lightly. 

 

Posted By 

CatAdjusterX

 on 12/02/2013 12:47 AM 

when you state "true reciprocity" between the states, are you referring to simply recognizing said non-resident adjuster is a licensed professional           from their home state and as such they are qualified to work in our state as well (without the need of a non-resident license)? I imagine most states       would not want to forego that stream of revenue, but stranger things have happened

Yes. 

 

 

 

AA,

yes it is indeed very easy for folks to obtain an adjuster's license. A few states such Indiana / Texas / Florida don't even require a test at all provided you take a 40 hour course. Others, just like you stated simply let you take the exam without ANY pre-licensing requirements.

The fact of the matter is I have devoted my efforts to helping the new folks, yet nobody should have the ability to handle claims immediately upon initial licensure (of course there are exceptions to every rule) Standardized guidelines (ala the PTC series of certifications and designation) should be required for all adjusters. Granted that would be a tough sell to the carriers. Yet with the political pressure being put on the carriers to shorten response times and forego this deductible and that deductible, maybe now is the time TO play politics. If someone were to get Governor Christie to champion this cause and by all indicators this is something near and dear to his heart, who knows as he begins his Presidential campaign.

I have written to Governor Christie 3 times already. I did get a response but was an autopen and generic. People have laughed at my efforts to contact Christie. Long shot? Most assuredly, but there is NO shot if I don't even try

There may be a constitutional question whether the Federal government has the authority to regulate something which is normally handled by the states. Would this law mandate that Texas accept an Alabama license, when the Alabama license has lower requirements? What if the Texas Insurance Commissioner refused to follow along, and adjusters working in Texas without Texas licenses were issued citations by the Texas DOI?

There are plenty of things regulated by the feds due to the commerce clause. For example there is a famous court case that decided the feds had the authority to decide the correct size for truck mudflaps, and not each state. The reason is trucks cross state lines. But within California, it is still the state government that decides how fast those trucks can drive.

Texas adjusters with Texas licenses handling Texas policies for Texas homeowners on losses inside Texas aren't really subject to Federal regulation.

And passing a Federal Law to try to change that might not be in line with the highest law of the country.

Posted By Leland on 12/09/2013 6:32 PM
There may be a constitutional question whether the Federal government has the authority to regulate something which is normally handled by the states. Would this law mandate that Texas accept an Alabama license, when the Alabama license has lower requirements? What if the Texas Insurance Commissioner refused to follow along, and adjusters working in Texas without Texas licenses were issued citations by the Texas DOI?

There are plenty of things regulated by the feds due to the commerce clause. For example there is a famous court case that decided the feds had the authority to decide the correct size for truck mudflaps, and not each state. The reason is trucks cross state lines. But within California, it is still the state government that decides how fast those trucks can drive.

Texas adjusters with Texas licenses handling Texas policies for Texas homeowners on losses inside Texas aren't really subject to Federal regulation.

And passing a Federal Law to try to change that might not be in line with the highest law of the country.

.............................................................

Leland, ultimately the discussion as a whole is an exercise in futility in that the bill itself has been given a paltry 11% chance of passing through Committee and  a less than 2% chance of being voted on