Forums

Danny I am one of the person's who questions any vendor that does not pay on closed and approved files submitted to insurance carriers on a two week basis. I will not work for a vendor that does not pay for my E & O coverage.  Has US Staffing changed their contract for their subs? The one I read that I downloaded several months ago, also ask the street adjuster to hold US Staffing harmless for (US Staffing's Negligence) and indemnify them.

Please print your sub's contract on this site if I am wrong.

If the training schools could train a person to handle complicated storm claims in one weeks time, why do so many claims get regected by these poor souls who try to do them.. Its a fact that non main street vendors(or back street) use these poor soles to to stop the phone's from ringing for several days as they give the carrier and the policy holder "their adjusters name & number. Many of these file's are then closed in the office when the files are pulled back(They are the vendors property). About 2 out of 20 can swim and last more than 3-4 weeks. If some of you vendors had some good advice to carriers it would be to let you teach scoping for 6 days and estimate writing for one day with a program that can be learned in 1/2 day. I know of a least three.

As O'Reilly says, Danny "you are a stand up guy for coming in here".

Danny,

Thank you for your consideration and courage in offering yourself on this forum, so people can get answers straight from the top. Hopefully you will get well-thought-out questions and expressions of concern. I, for one, appreciate and respect those vendors who take the time to address the adjusting community directly.

My impression of US Staffing training courses is that they are geared to the beginning adjuster. That is my impression because the courses that your representatives would call and offer me when I was independent were courses that were introductions to adjusting and/or Xactimate - courses that I would have possibly needed 15 years ago, but not where I would spend my money today. Now that I am on staff I am more likely to get my training in a forum like PLRB's large loss conference or individual courses offered by AICPCU. I readily recognize, however, the need for a niche market to train beginning adjusters at a reasonable cost.

If you are looking for input, here's mine. The four hurricanes of 2004 and the three bad sisters of 2005 (Katrina, Rita, Wilma) created a need for independent adjusters like I have never seen. Part of the problem was also systemic in that carriers as a group had underused independent catadjusters for several years prior to 2004. Consequently, many of the best catadjusters I know had left the business between 1999 and 2004. The need for fast training was extreme when the 2004 hurricane season produced four major storms. The best that could be done was to offer quick training to underqualified people. The aftermath was devastating to those of us who were exclusively catadjusters. The carriers were displeased with the end result, and many undiscerning carrier representatives painted us all with the same brush. When, in 2007, I foresaw that it could become increasingly difficult to make a living as an independent I had to remove the word "catadjuster" from my resume before any employer would even look at my qualifications. I heard comments like, "my company will never use catadjusters again". Though comments like this were actually a reflection of ignorance on the part of those making the comments, it did reflect an all-too-prevalent attitude in the industry.

I now work on staff, as I mentioned. I am in charge of assigning daily claims to adjusters all over the country and reviewing the work they submit to me. I use some of the catadjusters I met through CADO and through contacts in the industry I made when I was a catadjuster. I have had good results because I know who to hire and who to avoid. The day before yesterday I got an email from an agent stating that he had never seen a claim handled better in 17 years as an agent. This is because I put a team of three very motivated and knowledgeable people on the claim the second it crossed my desk (One for building, one for contents, and one for business interruption). I don't mind using someone with less experience if they are motivated and have good training. I also don't mind using someone with lots of experience and motivation.  However, I have had to take a couple adjusters off my files recently, one with 23 years of experience and no discernable motivation or ability to follow directions and a couple others who were billed as "general adjusters" but their work product did not reflect this designation.

I know these comments are not very specific, nor are they intended to be. Rather, I am just urging you to make sure the training you provide is of the highest quality so that new adjusters know what will be expected of them and are equiped to deliver a quality work product. Perhaps as important is that they know where to find the answers to the questions for which they may not know the answers yet. Here is at least one carrier who will employ a well trained and highly motivated adjuster and be willing to walk them through some of the steps to closing a file and getting paid for it. We, however, have a very low volume of sometimes complex commercial property claims. The big guys like the Red company and the Blue company may be a harder sell.

I agree with Ray and Steve. Having been to Vale Tech and Farm Bureau Tech myself, I know book training is very important. I took many courses through NAIIA years ago and still enjoy learning as much about adjusting as I can, even though I cannot climb roofs any more. This is a challenging occupation, one that requires knowledge and the only way to gain that is to seek it.

Danny,
Thanks for your courage in putting yourself "out there." Personally, (based on the experiences I've had with your company - which I've commented on ad nuseum here recently), it's nice to see someone over there finally displaying some accountablity and respect for students and independent adjusters, who, after all, enable all of you to make your money. Hopefully all of you will be able to turn things around and I wish you success in doing so; in my opininon, you have a big job.

 Despite the ravings of one person who has responded to my input on this site, you'll see that I have only shared my experiences while receiving training with US Staffing; not, as you put it, to steer anyone TOWARDS anyone elses firm (which actually is fine) but, rather, to steer them away from the bad experiences I've had with yours. I'm not in the training business. If the "Ronco-tilt-o-meter" had been on the positive side, I would have shared it (as I did in commenting about your TX pre-licensing course), but over all it was on the negative tilt and, for me, will remain there until I see evidence that you have indeed addressed the issues - as you have assured us is being done.
 

Finally, to quote you: "I would just ask everyone out there that they do their due diligence to look beyond the surface of each and every post that goes on this site." I whole heartedly agree and would add that your post should be held up to that same light for inspection. Depsite your best, and probably sincere efforts, in fact, you are apparently representing US Staffing in this thread and only stand to gain by discounting criticism of US Staffings business practices as biased or unethical.

Thanks again.

Good points and post Dave. Lets use your same example and vendor. After the adjuster is back in Vermont he is named in a suit that names the drefendants. The first is xyz insurance company, the 2nd is John Poor veep of claims for xys insurance company, the third is xxx the vendor and the forth is ABC the adjuster who lives in Vermont and who was served in Vermont. The suit is brought in Texas which ask for a jury trial and ask the jury to apporition the negligence in the unfair claim practice and the deceptive trade practice claim. The adjuster calls xxx back in Texas and ask for defense and indemnity and xxx says you must provide your own. You then call your E & O carrier and tell them your problem. You get a letter from your E & O carrier in a week saying they do not have a duty to defend you until you have satisfied your deductible of $10,000.

In three years the case is tried and the jury finds the carrier and the Veep, 75% and the vendor 25% and you 0% . You ask your E & O carrier to reimburse you for for your legal and travel expense over $10,000 and they state thier contract does not have the language as you were not at fault and the words." we have the right and duty to defend any insured against a suit to which this insurance applies.  This is missing in all E & 0 contracts that I have ever read.