|Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2000 - 9:40 pm: |
I think you are right. My experience lends itself to the belief the key is documentation of the field notes. Most of us could do a better job documenting the file.
|r p jr|
|Posted on Monday, April 10, 2000 - 9:19 pm: |
No my toes are fine. Thanks for the blessing.
hope your having fun at home!
|TIRED OF READING|
|Posted on Monday, April 10, 2000 - 9:03 am: |
TO RPJ.R. OR WHOEVER:
Did you get your toes smashed? Bless your little heart. Glad you found something you could spout off about! Do you know anything?
|r p j.r.|
|Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2000 - 2:52 pm: |
Attn R D Hood,
Ive noticed in several other places on this web site that you enjoy picking and poking at spelling and grammer.
Well my freind you should consult a thesaraus
and leave your dictionary alone.
If you would quit picking and poking , you probably would not be sitting at home right now.
Nothing against you, just leave people alone and stay on your side of the fence. KNOW BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH.
|R.D. Hood (Dave)|
|Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2000 - 11:08 am: |
These responses are certainly appro-po.
The re-inspections are for the most part a condition of the vendor agreement with the carrier, wherein a certain percentage of the files are required to be re-inspected. Mostly there are selected at random, and every field adjuster is inspected.
The findings of the re-inspector are based on the observations of the loss at the time,(which as has been stated, may not be the same as the conditions when the adjuster inspected the loss), coupled with the file and photographs provided initially.
Herein, lies the problem. If speed is the motivating factor, in inspection, diagramming, measuring, photographing, then mistakes can be expected.
Rather, taking the time to examine the loss correctly, spending the time necessary to document and photograph the loss to the best of your abilities will preclude some embarrassment.
The annotation, of ANY item that is beyond the realm of normality, is a paramount requirement. If the dry-wall is in a condo that has a fire rated code which may require a double layer, that item MUST be addressed in your estimate, in a note. The same will apply , if a roof has two or more layers in place that you paid for , to be removed. Or if the local code requirements dictate you to add something that was not there, (and the policy had Law and Ordinance coverage), that must be noted.
Always remember, WE are the eyes and ears of the carrier. This re-inspector has a job to do. And the justification for that job is to find errors , IF THEY EXIST. They are not supposed to fabricate a report to make themselves look impressive (although, it appears that some do this)) but to provide the Vendor and the Client the correct affirmation that the loss is being dealt with in a fair and equitable manner.
Remember to always CYA (Cover your anatomy) when filing any report, annotate conditions, make the report as complete and informative as you can. When this is the case the re-inspectors job is much easier, and your reputation will remain intact.
Even old dogs can learn new tricks, if you get their attention, and they in turn can teach the pups.
And as always lets adopt a new credo for catadjusters "KBYG" is not a radio station, it stands for "KNOW BEFORE YOU GO"
|Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2000 - 10:25 am: |
As a personal matter I understand an adjuster must have someone looking over his shoulder. After all I am paying losses out of someone else's checkbook. I believe you could send 3 adjusters in to look at the same loss and get 3 differant scope's, and all 3 be correct and justifiable. Therein lies the crux of the reinspectors problem. On some storms I have worked I have been called by the reinspector to explain my sheet, on other storms I hav'nt been. I have also been defended by my storm manager. I guess its part of the business, I just ask for fairness, and for everyone to be treated the same, including the favorite sons.