|Todd Summers (T4summ)
|Posted on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 1:37 pm: |
Eberls has 50 adjusters working mold in Houston. Wardlaw has around 100. Supposedly this is just the first wave. Many of these adjusters are old-timers and have been adjusting for years. I like to think that as a newbie, the reason I was called is because they liked my work. The number of claims coming in are multiplying rapidly. There definitely is a need for more people, and these are all much like large loss files, so experience would be a strong assett. Call them up !
|Tom Strickland (Toms)
|Posted on Friday, December 07, 2001 - 5:28 am: |
Why are they just hiring new people to work these claims. Has anyone with a experienced background in adjusting checked with E, or Wardlaw and asked to go to work? I must be missing something here.
Are they just hiring new adjusters, are they being biased against us "old" cat adjusters? What will E, or Ward do when they need us? Just dial up
|Donita Taylor (Donilynn)
|Posted on Friday, December 07, 2001 - 12:56 am: |
Not all of the inexperienced are being given the opportunity to work the mold. I'm still setting at home, working as a cashier at a liquor store just to make my truck and credit card payments. I would jump at the opportunity, but whenever I call, they say they don't need anyone. So who's working the mold claims?
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 4:29 pm: |
Older then Dirt, this is what chafes my rhino cheeks. The past few days in San Antonio, Wardlaw and Eberls have jointly put on a two or three day mold indoctrination for a whole bunch of hotshots to work mold for the Big FIG. The FIG honcho said they are getting 120 mold claims per day, statewide. That's nice, you say, but what does that mean to me?
It means that a good size herd is going to make $11,000/month while we old goats on CADO are going on interviews for psychic hotline jobs at $10.00/hour. That is what I find to be typical with our industry. The least qualified work the losses that need the most qualified.
On the other side of the coin, come the next west coast storm with easy, fast money, we get to go first and hog the files like pigs at the trough.
Am I being too cynical? Am I being overly judgmental? Am I in need of mental health care and a lap dance? You decide.
|Kile Anderson (Kileanderson)
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 12:43 pm: |
Thanks Jim, I think I see what you are saying. I think the reason I'm having so much trouble grasping the concept is because I was indoctrinated at an early age on how to take these types of tests. It's all I've ever known so doesn't seem so foreign to me. The one thing that I was always taught is to read the question twice and decide exactly what is being asked not what you think is being asked. With the increasing frequency of this type of testing in the past 20 years or so, I think it has become more common in schools to teach these techniques so I just assumed everyone knew them.
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 12:10 pm: |
I guess the best way to explain it is that they would ask a question and give you four multiple- choice answers. Any one of the four answers could be correct, however only one is correct. They may have changed a word or put it in a different order, but only one is correct. The school knows what the questions are and tells you the answers to them. They of course deny this but when you are in the class, they tell you. This is what is meant that the test is meant to confuse you and to find out if you are good at taking a test and answering trick questions, not finding out what you know about insurance. I believe that FL and CA are the two worst. However, FL is by far the most difficult.
Jim Lakes RPA
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 12:09 pm: |
Sitting here reading this thread today it seems to me that we are dancing arround the real issue here. Someone is hiring and sending all these rookies into the field. I wonder who. We have heard from Jim L. and he has answered the question as far as his firm is concerned.
|Kile Anderson (Kileanderson)
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 11:33 am: |
Once again, just as I asked Russel, please elaborate on what you meant by learning to take the test and "trick questions". I have heard people talk about this many other times and have always been confused by it. I am 30 years old and assume that is a little younger than many of the people who frequent this board. When I was in high school in the mid to late 80's we were often given standardized tests. PSAT's, SAT's, ACT's to get into college, the ASVAB for placement in the millitary, various state and local evaluation tests. All of these tests were of the multiple guess variety. Not to brag, but I always scored very high on these tests, I'm begining to wonder if I'm not as smart as I think I am and maybe I'm just a good test taker. Was the material you were being tested on not based on adjusting or insurance? Were there coded secret messages in the question that gave you the right answer? I've always just read the question and marked the box or circle next to the right answer. Is that not how most people take these tests? Someone please elaborate, I'm very confused by this concept of learning to take the test being more important than knowledge of the material being tested on.
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 10:22 am: |
Russ Doe is right on the mark and correct. While I lived in Florida, I too had the same problem. I didn’t fail the test the first time but that was only because I had heard about the school and all the trick questions. The questions were not designed to find out what you knew about insurance, they were designed to find out if you knew how to take a test and answer trick questions. Many of the people at the school were there because they had failed the test as many as three times. Those that took this school did not fail, because they were versed on the answers to the questions, not how insurance works, coverage or how to adjust a claim.
I in fact, had several argumentative debates with the instructor about some of the statements that he was making and I was told politely to “forget about it,” that they were teaching us how to take the test and pass it, NOT teach us policy, coverages or causes.
I have stated before and will again, a license or some designation does not make all people an adjuster. I know of many that have state licenses and have never adjusted a claim in their life. The only reason that I request to know what states adjusters are licensed in is to abide by the law. I could care less if you were licensed otherwise.
I judge an adjuster by the “quality” of their work not how many licenses he or she holds.
Jim Lakes RPA
National Catastrophe Director
RAC Adjustments, Inc.
|RUSSELL E. DOE (Rdoe)
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 7:40 am: |
Kile, the seminar taught me how to distinguish trick questions and general multiple choice test taking. It seemed to me that knowledge of the material was irrelevent, my ability to take the test was most tested. The test did'nt put me on the road to good adjusting,it just gave me the opportunity work in the industry.
|Kile Anderson (Kileanderson)
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 10:07 pm: |
Russell, please ellaborate on what you mean by learning to take the test. I have heard this over and over on several occasions dealing with college boards and other evaluation type tests. I thought that in a multiple guess test, you just read the question, fill in the box with the answer and move on. What was the difference between what you did that took you 4 hours on the first test and only one hour on the second test. I have always been good on standardized tests such as SAT's and ACT's that kind of thing so I have always wondered what makes the difference between a good test taker and a not so good test taker.
|RUSSELL E. DOE (Rdoe)
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 7:37 pm: |
I'll always believe that experience is always the best teacher. I took the Florida all lines exam 8 years ago and failed it the first time.I had poster boards hanging in my livingroom and bathroom with all the coverages out of my adjusting bible.I studied hard for 2 months before I took the first exam. I didnt realize that the test was about taking tests. It had nothing to do with my knowledge of coverage.I failed and someone told me to attend a weekend seminar on how to TAKE THE TEST!!!I attended the seminar and they taught me how to take the exam. I spent the full 4 hrs on the first exam and failed. I spent 1 hour on the second exam and passed.Go figure.I had my license to go out in the world and Adjust. I was fortunate to be working for Pilot, and had a lot of good teachers if you wanted to take the time to listen.I always want to better my product and would seek out those seasoned adjusters and pick their brains and have them ride along on a mornings adjusting. I think too many adjusters wont ask for help. This site is a wonderful tool to interact with other Adjusters and ask any question and get answers from very experienced Road Warriors. The BEST are right here. I agree with Ghost on NACA, Long on party's short on Adjusting issues.I suggest that we all take a good look at whats happening in our industry. We have to first, put out a quality product, Honor our commitment to the vendor that we accept work from and expect the same treatment from them. Be willing to do the whole job. Last but not least, expect to be paid a fair price for the amount of work per file! If they want an estimate,diary,photo's the fee schedule should reflect that.If they want 4 copies of the estimate, Captioned reports,2 set of photo's, underwriting data (roof drawings)on none roof losses, (Replacement cost of the dwellings), (floppy of photo's) That should also have its own schedule for the amount of work per file! It seems we are doing so much more work for the same old fee schedules. We cant change it as individuals, we can only change it as a group of adjusters that have a stake in OUR futures. so much for the rhetoric. Claude, You are in my thoughts and prayers, Get better soon!!
|Roy Cupps (Roy)
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 7:12 pm: |
I agree we do have some problems. It just seems to me and I know this nothing new, that the adjuster is always getting knocked down by just about everybody out there. I just feel that the one place adjusters should at least receive a break is on a site devoted to adjusters. One of the reasons I created the site over six years ago was because I saw that we as adjusters had an image problem. I felt that if we could somehow come together in a collective effort in the sharing of information and helping each other that we could somehow improve the image. If it takes an association or some similar action to galvanize this community then I'm all for it and will toss all the resources that CADO can offer into the pot. We just need to move out of the rut and down the path to solving problems. Sorry for going a little off-topic.
|Jim Flynt (Jimflynt)
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 6:08 pm: |
Roy, I am sorry if you or anyone else took offense at the post I made, and contrary to your belief my point was not to be abrasive to any of the fine folks from Texas nor to "stir things up." My fervant hope in making the earlier post as well as others, is to hopefully stir people into thinking more deeply about a topic or seeing another way of looking at a subject.
North Carolina licensing laws closely parallel Texas laws for the occupations which I listed with almost identical classroom hour requirements with the exception of massage therapists, which NC requires to have 1,600 hours of training before licensing. Perhaps North Caroilinians are more prone to rub people the wrong way, as I did, thus requiring more stringent licensing rules.
I'm reasonably sure that detailed research of most other states would reflect a similar pattern in the licensing requirements for the occupations which I listed and contrasted to the adjuster licensing requirements for those 33 states which require adjuster licensing.
The whole point of my post was that there will never truly be professionalism in adjusting purely at the licensing level with the current pre-licensing requirements, whether one is in NC, Texas or any of the other states.
It just seems to me that it is a sad state for our industry when more pre-licensing training is required for the occupations I referenced as contrasted with adjusters.
If you really think about it without bias, the adjuster is certainly potentially in a position of greater power, authority and capability to severly harm the general public as any of these other occupations. And in the end, the whole purpose of pre-licensing requirements is not to protect the license holder, but to protect the general public from unscrupulous or ill-trained vocationers.
I do stand by the principle that any state which would allow a student to attend a one day seminar and then be vested with enough knowledge to pass that state's licensing requirement for an occupation, would be considered to be a joke as far as that license being indicative of any scholarship or even the most minimal standards of education and learning. If that applies to Texas or any other state, including any of the 17 which do not require adjuster licensing exams, then so be it.
It is my understanding that New York has the toughest licensing exam for adjusters in the U.S. closely followed by the ones in Florida and N.C. It might be of interest to post here the "pass-fail" rate for those state's adjuster licensing exams and compare with some of the "production factory states."
I am grateful to those very few states with realistic stringent standards which suggest that not every cab driver, not every bagboy, and not every hair dresser is qualified to be an adjuster, cat or otherwise. When we want to be viewed and treated as professionals with the attendent respect and compensation, then we will as an industry work together to lobby all of the states for higher tougher more stringent pre-licensing and licensing standards for adjusters.
My last reason for addressing Texas law in my earlier posts was related to the thread which seemed to be centered specifically around a discussion of licensing seminars and requirements within Texas. The same points which I made would be applicable to almost every other state within the U.S.
Again, I am sorry if I offended you or anyone, and I'll try to not wake up and make posts so early in the morning when my mind is not as alert as the rest of me.
|Roy Cupps (Roy)
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 3:32 pm: |
Jim it seems to me that your comments are intended to rub a lot people the wrong way. I take offense to most of your comments, especially the comment "clean out someone's wallet". It appears that you are trying to stir up something.
What does your data say about Adjusters from states that do not require a license. Are they less of an adjuster now.
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 3:29 pm: |
Thas' right, Massa Clayton! There were high hopes, once apon a time for NACA to do just that. It didn't. Why, you ask? The vendors got on the governing board and made sure it stayed a party boat. Can CADO evolve an organization with teeth and bad attitude to make adjusting a TRUE profession like doctors, lawyers, and plumbers?
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I hear ya out there. Those with the gold call the tune. That's all fine and good until you realize that we'uns is the ones playing the tune and we'uns dictate how much gold will be forked over to play the tune! This is what scares the carriers and vendors. We'uns just might rock the boat and cause the carrier execs to have smaller bonus's and thereby deprive their cute and cuddly girl friends.
That's how I see it. I welcome any and all criticisms of this viewpoint. Take your best shot!
|Jim Flynt (Jimflynt)
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 3:48 am: |
Here are a couple of facts* for your consideration and consumption:
Texas law requires 90 hours of classroom training before a Texas citizen can become a licensed real estate salesman.
Texas law requires 1,500 hours of training before a Texas citizen can become a licensed barber.
Texas law requires 4 full semesters of classroom work plus 1,000 hours of training before a Texas citizen can become a licensed dental hygienist and clean teeth.
Texas law requires 250 hours of classroom training plus 50 hours of internship before a Texas citizen can become a licensed massage therapist.
It would seem the message that Texas is sending is you have to be educated and trained before cleaning teeth but not to clean out someone's wallet as an insurance adjuster.
In Texas you have to spend a lot of time in school to learn to cut hair but an insurance adjuster wanting to cut corners and cut an insured out of policy benefits requires a one day class at Leonards.
If you want to rub someone the right way in Texas, you need to attend 250 hours of class. But you can rub an awful lot of folks the wrong way by attending a one day pre-licensing class.
You have to have a minimum of 90 hours to sell a house in Texas, but to adjust a house, attend a one day seminar and you can be licensed to handle the largest loss a homeowner could ever experience as an insurance adjuster.
Those are important messages that the State of Texas is sending it's citizens and the rest of us.
What does all of that say or suggest to you?
Is it any wonder that a Texas insurance adjuster's license is considered a joke?
(*I checked each and every one of the license requirements for each of the occupations listed to verify the license requirements in Texas so that I would know my facts are and were correct and up to date).
|Donita Taylor (Donilynn)
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 1:13 am: |
As a newbee in this field, I would like to respond to Clayton's post. I am one of the many that went through the "license factory" in Dallas, and I do agree that it was too easy. They taught us the test, not how to adjust. I believe that there should be a system in place as in Emergency Medicine, that there be better regulation of what is taught in the class room and that there be a requirement for a certain amount of field training before being allowed to take the test. But that is just my opinion.
However, as a newbee, I have a couple of observations. There isn't any real mentoring programs through the vendors to help us become good and professional adjusters. We have to find someone willing to take us out and teach us the ropes and mold us into adjusters. I have been trying to learn as much as possible because I do want to be a professional, but it hasn't been easy. Unfortunately, there are a lot of younger people that are getting into this business because they heard that they can earn a great deal of money in a short amount of time. They really don't care about the quality of their work because they haven't been working long enough to realize that they are judged by their work, not by the amount of money in the bank. They will do this for a couple of years and realize that it isn't what they thought and move on to something else.
If you want to change things in this field, you have to come up with a workable plan to take us newbees and teach us, whether through CADO, or through the vendors. Just remember that most of us do have bills to pay and need to be paid while we are learning so that we can survive until we can get out on our own and make the real money.
I am willing to pay my dues, but I have to be given the chance to do so first. I have found in this field that getting the training and mentoring that I need is almost non-existant. I would like to attend the conferences and possilby Vale, but just paying bills right now is a challenge. I have learned a lot by reading the posts here on CADO and I do appreciate all of the good information as well as some of the humor, but more has to be done by you veterans to help us newbees become the professionals that you are. One day you veterans will retire and it will be up to us that follow to carry on the torch. If we aren't trained properly, then the way things are done will change, and I'm afraid it won't be for the better.
Thanks for letting me express my opinion.
Happy Holidays to all, and stay safe.
|Clayton Carr (Clayton)
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 12:17 am: |
From Jim Lakes' post on Saturday and onward, this thread has taken a curve, then a straightline to a dark and dirty hole.
As JL keeps asking and searching for 'quality' in adjusting, JF regretably makes a sad but true statement concerning our big picture; ".... we get what we deserve .... it's only going to get worse ....". Michael illustrates for us the 'factory licence' process, then the Ghost tells us the reality of the widgets produced at the factory licence shop; and finally Tom asks 'that' question - I'll answer it like I've stated before - Cat adjusting as we know it, will be dead in two years.
I've paraphrased the previous posts because each is very worthy of being repeated. Personally, I am disgusted with many of the things I see evolving in the big picture of the claims world; not just Cat adjusting.
I've spent all my working life, over 30 years in claims, and about 2/3s of that in the field; this has allowed me the priveledge to stand up whenever I want and humbly say - I do not know it all after all these years, and that I hope to learn something each day, or that I hope to get better each day at a new or old technique. So it is with that attitude and outlook on life - not with jealousy, not with resentment, but with bitter condemnation - that I view the 'events' that those before me have written about.
If I lived in Texas, and saw these 'licenced widgets' at the front of the line at Wardlaw's shop door or any other such door; I would do something about it.
If I lived in a State that recognized or granted reciprocity for a TDI licence; I would do something about it.
If this CADO community recognizes the damages being done to our profession by the likes of these 'licence factories' that produce widgets with no internal operating mechanisms; then maybe this community will see one big reason why they should be a professional organization - that would do something about it.
My arrow is clearly pointed at the person with no previous insurance or claims experience, who goes through the factory and exits with all the answers to get a TDI licence; then armed with a piece of paper steps up to the 'Mold Bowl'or any other 'Complex Bowl'. A person with that definition is totally defenceless in the field of the real world of claims. That person will (and unfortunately quite likely unwittingly) do nothing but worsen the public perception of our profession, further erode the carrier's perception of our professionalism, and be of no benefit to themselves in pursuit of a claims career (or was that pursuit for some other measured gain); that if travelled in small steps along the trail of learning could well have resulted in a value added member of our profession.
I don't know all the 'ins & outs' of getting a TDI licence - but it seems too easy?
Professional organizations, regardless of the industry, have for years liaised and lobbied their 'governing body'.
Is this mess before us, not a reason or sufficient enough goal?
There are States and provinces that you and I can name, where the licencing requirements; in a nutshell are 'tough'; difficult written exams and intimidating verbal committee board reviews - that actually assess a person's knowledge and more importantly their application of that knowledge.
For all you folks who have ".... been there and done that experience ....", as Tom Joyce has said; regardless of how busy you were this year - is this not a problem that should be addressed? Is this not a problem that will affect your livelihood in your future?
I heed Tom's other words, ".... keep in mind where we have been ...."; but I am not optomistic or encouraged about ".... where we are trying to go ....".
|Tom Strickland (Toms)
|Posted on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 10:54 am: |
If you would just read the posts, it might enlighten everyone as to why 20+ years cat adjusters are not working!!!!!
One peril and One line adjusters are out there begging for work, and believe you me, $ 11,000.00 a month ain't bad money, only $ 130K+ a year. Looks good on a loan application for a$50k EXPEDITION.Ya'll tell me, now whats happening to the cat adjusting business, as we used to know it.
We better get the pencils back out and remember how to stick build an estimate.
|Posted on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 9:00 am: |
And...here's the punchline to the joke.
All those instant licensed, experts are today at the Wardlaw mold meeting in San Antonio and will be making over $11,000.00/month, royally screwing up the works at Farmers.
It used to be that a Texas adjusters licence and a dollar would get you a cup of coffee. My, my, how things have changed. Don't ya just love it?
|MIchael A. Hillis (Iadjstm)
|Posted on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 7:19 am: |
Here is what I found when I recently went to Texas to take a class for TDI.
There were about 26-28 people there for the stucy class and I must say it was a one day class. The instructor had each person say his name and what was their background.
After the class on the same day you were able to take the adjusters test for TDI, and were able to obtain a certificate right after testing if you pass. Many of the people had never adjusted claims before on their pwn and there were also people taking the class to get there licence without ever having been an adjuster by any means.
Every person in the class passed the test and all they had to do from there was fill out the Application for texas and submit them for their Texas Adjusters Licence.
I could not believe it could be that simple for anyone to obtain an adjusters licence. Now the same people are probably in the feild adjusting or trying because they are a licenced adjuster.
I thought everybody would like to be informed about this.
|Kelley Roberson (Kelley)
|Posted on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 8:10 pm: |
I would like to say this in Leonards Schools defense. I have attended several courses there. One of the first statements I have heard in all courses taken is " this course is not to prepare you to become an adjuster but to provide you with the knowledge to allow you pass the state lic. test & requirments.
I have taken many courses over the years in fields that require licenses, most courses only gave you the needed knowledge to pass the lic. but not the knowledge needed to work within that industry.
A possibiltiy for helping supply the industry with professionly trained adjusters would be to have a journeyman program. Reqdduirments would vary with the type of claim being worked. A program such as this would increase the pay for ppl with working knowledge. Why should the new person be paid the same as the experienced, yes the exper. adj. will work more claims but why should we not be compensatied for our knowledge & experience.
|Jim Flynt (Jimflynt)
|Posted on Sunday, November 25, 2001 - 12:12 am: |
Your question of where is quality in adjusting is simple and straightforward. The simple answers to some extent are right here on CADO.
Please note the following:
Within only the past few days:
Anonymous "adjusters" post to the CADO Forum with obvious disdain for the CPCU, AIC, RPA and other programs of continuing education and advanced insurance claims practice.
Anonymous "adjusters" post here protesting the case study method of insurance training and education.
Anonymous "adjusters" post to CADO in protest in having to listen to the "mind numbing" discourse from GAB staff adjusters about insurance claims scenarios.
Adjusters attend a weekend class at Leonards and then suddenly find themselves to be insurance "adjusters", while believing themselves qualified to handle any and every claim in one of the most significant newsworthy insurance markets in the country.
And you wonder where quality has gone in adjusting?
When WE start as an industry to police our own, perhaps, and that is PERHAPS with a capital P, we can save our profession. If we don't do it, we can all kiss this business Good Bye. The choice is ours.
We get what WE deserve is the answer to your question on quality.
And the bad news Jim; it's only going to get worse!
For all of US, that is "T.F.B." (For anyone who cannot figure out what T.F.B. means, please email me for an explanation.)
|Posted on Saturday, November 24, 2001 - 2:07 pm: |
I read the article that (link removed) wrote about the CA. case.
I am not saying I agree or disagree with their article. I do know, that I have found them, in the past, to not be totally reliable. When they were confronted with questions about an article they wrote, not only did they not answer the questions but didn’t even see fit to respond period.
Having said that and having lived in CA for six years and having handled many of these disputed claims, I can understand where the courts are coming from.
During that time, I handled many claims where the homeowner had abandoned the property and the mortgage company had turned in a claim for damages to the forced place carrier. In the process of discovery, we found out that the homeowner’s carrier had only paid for a minimal amount of the damage. Had many of these insured’s been aware of the real damages that they had there would be many more of these type suits.
I think it is common sense. If the insured had submitted the claim and later found that they were misled, why would the insured have to re-submit the claim? Why would there be a statue of limitation when they had already submitted it? I believe that the insurance carrier and the adjuster have an obligation for three basic things that I refer to as the (3) C’s.
1) Determine the “cause of the loss.”
2) Determine the “coverage for the loss.”
3) Determine the “cost of the loss.”
Obviously the adjuster did not secure an agreement or determine the “cost” of the loss or these claims would not still be popping up.
Roy, I think that it all boils down the one thing that I keep bringing up time after time.
Where’s the “Quality” in our adjusting?
Jim Lakes RPA
National Catastrophe Director
RAC Adjustments, Inc.
|R.D. Hood (Dave)
|Posted on Saturday, November 24, 2001 - 10:37 am: |
The fact that the Insured prepared an estimate at all,appears to be an admission of liability, albeit they contended that the loss was less than the deductible.
If the factual evidence presented, states that the loss amount is in dispute, then the parties have the obligation, under the policy, to demand appraisal.
Failing the solution to the problem via this method, the right of suit is retained.
It appears from the article that the appraisal terms were not used, (or the article did not mention this), and the suit was filed.
The reading of the precedent "neff " states that the denial of coverage was the basis for the decision. However, in this case, the ADMISSION of liability would have the relavent bearing.
Roy and Crawford Company MAY be in California, a lot longer than the six months he expected last April,2000.
Again, another situation where the companies, or Vendors did NOT use the proper adjusters, or relied on the wrong information. This Northridge thing will be around for a long, long time.
|Roy Cupps (Roy)
|Posted on Saturday, November 24, 2001 - 1:59 am: |
The California Supreme Court answered a question put to it by the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals by deciding that homeowners who "reasonably relied" on the judgments of their home insurers and were misled about the cost of the damages are not bound by time limitations for filing home insurance claims."
The above is a quote from an article on (link removed)it looks like that if the insured relies on our estimates and then later finds out that our estimate would not take care of the repairs then the insurer would be required to consideration to the additional repair cost without the "statute of limitations" coming into the picture. Any other interpretations of the article?