| Author |
Message |
Lyndon Graves
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 1999 - 1:18 pm: | |
The reinspection programs of the various Insurance companies need to be a central focus of all independent adjusters! The problem here is that these reinspection reports have absolutely no provisions for the adjusters to enter any comments about the findings. In effect, the reinspector holds all of the aces! By the time that the adjuster finds out about a negative reinspection, the report has already been sent to the Storm Manager, the Insurance company headquarters, and your company's management files(usually including your personnel file as well). This means that the damage had already been done! There is an absolute presumption that the reinspector is faultless, and unbiased, in his findings. This is actually far from the truth! My point is that as an industry, we must stand up for our rights to a least be able to enter a rebuttle, explanation, or other comment before the report reaches anyone else! The companies will tell you that reinspection reports are there to make you better, but they fail to mention that your ability to work for the company again is, in part, also determined by these reports. They are certainly no light matter! It is not unreasonable for two way feedback to exist! What do you think? |
John A. Postava
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 1999 - 1:20 pm: | |
Good postiong, Lyndon. Several months after Hurricane Opal I was "re-inspected" by a self-proclaimed "adjuster" for a leading property carrier. I wrote a $50,000.00 sheet on the loss and the re-inspector found less than $5,000.00 in damages! I got called on the carpet and was in jeopardy of losing the account - not only for myself but for the other adjusters I had working on the storm. It turned out the reinspector inspected the risk 2 weeks AFTER most of the repairs were completed! He failed to even ask the insured what was fixed because he "never talks with the policyholders". He had egg over his face because he really thought he "had me" and pursued my disiplinary action. Apologies were made and the waters calmed. I don't know whatever happened to the reinspector because I have yet to see his name appear in any of my travels since Opal in '94.
Of course this was an extreme example of a bad field audit by a reinspector but it drives home your point and mine - Adjusters that are slammed by a reinspection have the right to pursue justice (if they are given the right to investigate the allegations). Don't back down because some company yo-ho is intimidating you. As a cat adjusters, all you have is your reputation and work product - a false or misleading audit of your field work can cause permanent damage to both. Fight back with your knowledge of the loss and your estimating abilities and do it in such a professional manner as to convice management you made the right choices in the handling of the loss. |
DICK BENSON
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 1999 - 9:25 pm: | |
A little over a year ago this very same topic was discussed. If my memory is correct, nothing has changed. The sad thing about reinspectors is that they feel they need to justify there jobs. That puts you and I at risk. Having done reinspection work both as an independent appraiser and as a staff appraiser, I feel that if something is questionable then it should be discussed with the person who wrote the estimate. FAIR IS FAIR. As an independent it was strongly implied that I needed to find something wrong to justify being a reinspector or to justify a reinspection program. Yes I have had reinspections done on me as well. Everyone hates to be second guested, but then , that the nature of checks and balances. By the way, when a reinspection was done on me I maade it known that I wanted to discuss any reinspection, good or bad.
A point in case. Several years ago a reinspector looked at 10 loss's. He had a common complaint that our time to a completion was excessive. his report indicated that we were not giving the attention to that clients loss's or our inspection time would be less. This reinspector filled to look at the proper dates. He looked at the date the report was printed out for him, rather than the date the estimate was created. Had he just read the information at hand he would have same a lot of aggervation. However, this reinspector wrote a very detailed letter expalining that HE made a mistake and our work product was indeed of the highest quality. Again remember that some reinspectors are real humans, just as you are. |
|
