Forums

The science of psychrometrics governs drying in practical applications. The temperature and relative humidity being known combined with the cubic foot area of a room and the capacity of the drying equipment are taken into consideration in a mathematical formula. Several of the major drying equipment companies have these charts readily available. Common sense and some experience are invaluable as well. Recently some vendors are promoting excel based programs that define the amount of equipment required using floor space as a partameter. Exactware is also introducing a software package that calculates drying requirements. Careful scrutiny of vendor invoices should be practiced as emergency services invoices are often inflated in catastrophe situations where the thought process seems to be "there to busy to notice" .Instead of just forwarding the invoice on for payment review it and note any anomalies. You'll be appreciated by the carriers. Thought should also be given on larger claims to a "process audit". Were the methods used to mitigate appropriate? Were there alternatives? Were savings realized? etc.

"were savings realized"  that is the study that has never been made by the insurance claim departments. It seems this study is left up to the water extraction companies and some software programs. The water problem is :everwater claim is worked the same way. Water claims are not the same. I don,t remember one large water claim that did not result in a large gross loss to the policyholder. Water extraction attempts burn up policy limits.  If water extraction contractors worked ever dwelling loss under the flood policy 50% of the policy limits would be spent on extraction, before the build back started. This is why they do not follow catastrophic floods.

Ray the problem with large water losses as well as other large losses is the lack of process management. Too often a CPM(critical path management) plan is not required. This plan identifies methodologies and milestones for achieving results that contractors need to be held to. Also experience comes into play. Letting a contractor proceed at will is a recipe for disaster. The adjuster should be able to direct the contractor, not to the point of interference but with an eye to eliminating excess and improper process. Looking at unit costs and T&M rates are not the only way to ascertain the viability of claims dollar expenditures.

Marc all my post about water extraction are on "regular" water losses where the contractor is called by the agent. These people can not be dismissed by an adjuster who shows up, WITHOUT the adjuster being the bad guy as they have already sold the carriers agent, or the inside people.

Even on regular water losses where the contractor is on site unless the contractor was sent there by the carrier themselves the adjuster should monitor the work being carried out and comment on it's effectiveness or lack thereof in his report to the insurer at risk. Just because the insured or agent decided to utilize the contractor in question does not negate the adjusters role in securing a beneficial outcome for the insurer. After you've made your recommendations or comments known the carrier can do as they please. It seems to me that if you aren't there to monitor the loss process then the "watersucker" could settle the claim themselves. I see several posts where adjusters complain that contractors are taking their jobs. Well if you aren't doing the job don't complain.

I work for several commercial carriers on regular claims that require a construction consultant on on all losses of $100,000 reserve. These claims go smooth and you gather the cost and apply the coverage and submit.  This is the adjusters job.

Now the residentual jobs are a differant animal. The water suckers who was called before you have their foot in the door, charge 5 to 10 k for

50-60 man hours of skilled and unskilled labor and does not  save $1.00 on the loss in 95% of the claims I have worked. The charges are direct bill and not a part of the adjusters statement of loss. Houston has over 100 contractors doing this type work now. Some have 20 trucks and some have one pickup, but the charges are the same as they were all trained by the same bad fruit tree, that was not cut down and cast into the fire.

What kind of fruit tree is that Ray?  A pear, a peach, a Ficus?     Sorry.....just couldn't help muself!!!  But do have to agree with you to an extent on those losses that get reported late & you show up to find all that equipment parked there, some of it running and some of it not, and you later determine none of it went for any long-term good when R&R needs to be done anyway.  But there are always the times when it did turn out beneficial too.  We will always remember the worst cases longer though, and they do occur more often than not. 

Ray, I must agree.  95% of the time the flooring is not saved and the only thing accomplished is the generation of a water sucker service invoice.  Even if they do their job well, the homeowner is rarely satisfied with the final outcome.  They always remember the capret has been wet.   The restoration costs commonly are higher than the cost to replace the flooring. Pull all wet flooring and repalce it.  Then you can use less drying equipment for less time.  The final claim payout is usually the same; at worst 10% either way.  I have had restoration bills grossly exceed the replacement costs.  The homeowner is ALWYAS HAPPIER when he flooring is replaced.

Well we are getting people who know how this scam works. I thing more would step foward with a little prodding.