| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
 Posted - 09/07/2002 : 01:44:11
|
I am sick and tired of providing “Smoking Guns” to the Texas Department of Insurance and to the Office of the Attorney General and then having nothing done in a timely fashion. This time, I’ll put the obvious misreprentations by Farmers Insurance in WRITING for all to see. Here's an EXACT transcript of a letter Farmers Insurance sent to the Texas Department of Insurance in 1997 in reply to an inquiry about the way they figure roof debris removal. The letter is filled with OBVIOUS misinformation if not out and out lies. Farmers-generated claims worksheets were sent to both the department and the Office of the Attorney General this time! Here is evidence that a first year paralegal could impeach! Bold denotes the truth about the misrepresentations. The Farmers letter in response to the inquiry:
____________________________________________________________________
April 18, 1997
Texas Department of Insurance
P.O. Box 149104
Austin, TX 78714-9104
Attention: David Durden, Deputy Commissioner
Property and Casualty Insurance Lines
RE: Roof Claim Adjustment Practices
This is in response to your letter dated April 8, 1997.
Your letter specifically addresses concerns in the methods we use in computing roofing material removal. Our position is to allow the removal cost of the damaged surface area. This cost is based on the average prevailing removal cost in the area where the home is located. Our cost does not specify the removal of areas such as hips, valleys or ridges as they are inclusive in the surface area and the average removal cost.
Inclusive? More lies in the next paragraph, too, but of course, those "survey" prices ask only for prices per square and a square is not EVER defined as TWO separate properly applied shingles in depth. Also, their "ON" squares are adjusted UPWARD to ADD for those two ply areas! The Farmers letter continues:
We continue to review the prevailing unit cost charges in all areas. These costs have changed to meet local price fluctuations. Specifically, we have seen a 100% increase since 1995, in the allowance for roofing material removal. This cost has been affected by both increased labor costs and disposal fees.
Actual Farmers homeowners claims worksheets were acquired from homeowners from both 1986 and from 2002, to use as examples with which to check the veracity of this "100% increase" statement. The price in 1986? $16 per square. The price in 2002? $20 per square. No hype, no tricks just real FARMERS-GENERATED claims settlement sheets given to REAL Farmers claimants. If they're good enough to use sophisticated actuarial tables and projections to correlate credit score with claims, WHY DO THEY TELL THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE THAT A $4 INCREASE IN 16 YEARS IS A 100% INCREASE FROM 1995 TO 1997? The Farmers letter continues:
We feel that our method of calculating roofing removal costs and prevailing unit costs are both fair and equitable to insureds.
We have called Farmers Insurance for an explanation of this letter and were told they will not comment unless a question is posed by a regulatory agency. The Farmers letter closes:
Very truly yours,
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP OF COMPANIES
John Hageman, CPCU
State Executive Officer ______________________________________________________________________
It should take absolutely NO time at all to check into this since Farmers Insurance pulled this letter and had it at the ready when they called me back to issue a “No Comment” statement. Simply ask for a claims worksheet on a composition roof from 1994 and one for the same type of roof from 1998. There’s your answer. No muss, no fuss! Yes or No. Even the 2002 sheet we submitted PROVES that $20 is the price for 2002 in Tarrant County, Texas. For that to be a 100% increase since 1995, as they state, the price in 1995 would have had to have been $10. Prices haven’t FALLEN so there is absolutely no truth contained in the pricing information they supplied to TDI and David Durden in 1997.
I guess there is no wonder why the AG picked on Farmers. It's easy to catch them misstating the truth.
|
Lon |
Edited by - Lon Sterling on 09/07/2002 10:17:59 |
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 09:12:15
|
How long have you not cared whether a carrier lies or not, Mr. Flynt?
Is your mind so jaded you think it's okay to state in a formal inquiry that you have increased tearff prices 100% when in fact you have gone from $16 to $20 in 16 years?
I doesn't matter who I am. It matters that Farmers lied during a formal investigation and for your only defense of their actions to be screaming "Roofer! Roofer!" is pretty lame.
Did they or did they not LIE, based on their OWN self-generated record of payments which was scanned and sent to the Texas Department of Insurance and reported in my previous post?
Judging by your evasive, off topic post, I suppose YOU think it is okay to LIE to regulators, roofers and policyholders, don't you, Mr. Flynt?
Wonder if there are any Wardlaw people out there who can PROVE the pricing in Texas doubled on tear off between 1995 and 1997 when the false reply was made by Farmers?
|
Lon |
 |
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 09:19:41
|
Lonnie, we thank you for your post and your continued beating of the dead horse. We could again preach the Sermon on the Mount of the Sins of the Big Fig, but we did that last week. We could raise our voices in hymns about how their old corporate mottto of 'Fast, Fair, and Friendly was in reality 'Slow, Surly, and Squirrely' or the recent motto of 'We put you back where you belong' is 'We tell you where to go', but frankly, we're kinda tired.
Can we please find a new target to skewer? This one has too many holes in it now. |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 09:51:01
|
Again, Mr. Flynt, you don't control what I post unless you pull the post or ban me from the board. I asked why it was okay for Farmers to lie. Answer that one and quit yelling "Roofer! Roofer!" It is apparent that you lack a defense for their egregious behavior so you feel your only option is to attack the messenger who is REPRINTING exactly what they lied about! What a shame you have to stoop to that defense. Sorta like being back in middle school on that one.
And Ghostbuster, I really don't care who is tired here. They couldn't be as tired as I am of evasive people like Jim Flynt and companies that lie.
Since I wasn't here to join in the discussion that made you SOOO tired and that you call a "dead horse", WILL YOU PLEASE PULL IT UP AND SHOW ME THE POSTS? Since new people join the board every day, I thought, perhaps, some might find this information worthy of study or that someone with Farmers or Wardlaw could prove it wrong.
How about letting other people decide what THEY think is important.
Answer me, Mr. Flynt, and I'll answer you in kind.
Off to the golf course. See you guys later! I'll answer the reply posts when I get back late this evening whether I shoot 79 or 99.
Show me those worksheets fellows. Prove me wrong and Farmers right. I'll be the first to admit my error. |
Lon |
|
|
|
Admin
547 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 11:24:07
|
| I will allow one rebuttal from the author of the post and then I'm closing this thread. I've have seen this before and nothing good ever comes out of it and sooner or later everyone gets mad and I end up having to delete post anyway. |
Roy Cupps -
CatAdjuster.org :: Contact\Feedback :: Adjuster Roster :: Current Forum |
|
|
|
RJ
32 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 11:35:46
|
Lon Sterling
First of all I would like to ask you if you have ever heard of Federal privacy laws? In case you haven’t the following will link you to the correct web site:
http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm
After you have read & studied this you may begin to understand that the adjusting community can not and will not enter into a discussion with you when it involves an issue that is specific to protection under the THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 5 U.S.C. § 552A as amended and all sub sequential amendments.
Secondly your attack of Jim Flint was totally uncalled for. Jim as everyone knows is extremely knowledgeable in the field of insurance adjusting and your attack only shows your lack thereof.
Third if the subject of your post was to discuss removal costs of roofing then you should leave the rest out of the discussion. May we suggest that you give the topic a rest for awhile and then if you still wish to have a discussion try a different approach. Remember it is easier to catch a fly with honey than with vinegar.
Rj |
|
|
|
TomToll
USA
87 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 11:39:11
|
| Lonnie, here is the problem, simple and true. As an adjusting community, what can we do. We earn our living doing what the companies require us to do and what we know must be done. As adjusters, we cannot set prices based on what the roofing contractors feel is a fair price. If all roofing contractors were of professional origin and had fairness and integrity in mind, it might work, but that is not the case. I have seen outright lies come from the roofing industry also. This society of America has become a litigous and greedy society, so the companies have to cope with this. I believe Enron proved that. But again, what do you expect us to do when we derive our income from the companies who give us rules to follow. I kiss no ones posterior, but I have enough common sense to know that if ABC Insurance company says to pay so much for tear off and replace, that is exactly what will be done. If you feel the company you refer to is not telling the truth, hire an attorney and go after them, but don't ask us to do it for you. |
Tom Toll |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 12:10:44
|
Awww, Roy, please let us chew on the bone awhile. It's a Saturday, all I've got to do is cut the grass and change the spark plug wires on my wifes car. This tirade could take some of the edge off our pent up tempers. C'mon, whattya say? Just a little more vitriol?
Ya know, Lonnie, (here comes the personal attack), I'm reminded of other contractor aquaintences that do insurance work who whine and carp over the admittedly absurd ways insurance companies operate. Is there specific training that contractors attend to learn how to become world class complainers? Are there whine and cheese seminars? My summation is that when you latch onto the insurance teat, don't be surprised if all you get is skim milk. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 12:32:50
|
Jim ,I went to the ISO home page, first time, and they had some interesting articles, some were old but worth reading.If I keep scrounging around maybe I can learn something. If you guys know any good links let me know. Ghost Buster, I gotta thank you for the info on your measuring device, I posted it on hardware, mine is so much better than yours because it was cheaper, kidding, it is the same but was so cheap I couldn't pass it up..
The other subject, I forgot, oh something about Jim had one hooked in the jaw and Ghost Buster cut the line and let him off. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 12:44:20
|
Mr. Sterling,
Unfortunately Mr. Flynt has beaten me to the punch. The Farmers letter says labor and disposal costs have caused a 100% increase in removal costs. You seem to be only concentrating on one element of this increase the labor cost, which at a 25% increase in a 2 year period is in itself quite significant, you totally ignore the disposal cost portion of the total. How much have dump fees gone up over the same period of time? You are quite Clintonesque in your arguments.
Let me give you another reason why we have little respect for roofers. This past summer I was working a wind storm in the midwest. I had an insured who had wind damage to one slope on his rental dwelling. The front and back slopes were two layers. The front slope was a south facing slope and had aged much faster than the rear slope. The front slope was severely damaged by wind while the rear slope had absolutely no damage at all. The policy of the company that I was working for was to pay for only the damaged slopes. Therefore I wrote my estimate to replace the front slope and included 2 layer tear off and debris removal as well as additional charges for 2 story application and a new shingle over ridgecap and valley metal. The roofer told the elderly, imigrant policy holder who had a limited English vocabulary that you couldn't tear off and replace just the front slope because it was a two layer roof and he had to replace both the front and rear slope. I explained to the insured that this was not necessary and that he should get another roofer to give him an estimate. The insured did not believe me and went ahead with the entire roof replacement and paid the difference out of his own pocket. One day as I'm driving through the neighborhood I see the roofer working on the property and I stop by to have a conversation with the roofer. I asked him, in his professional opinion if you can replace just the front slope. He wouldn't answer my question. He kept avoiding the question by attacking me, the company that I worked for and the entire insurance industry. But he would not answer the simple, logical questions that I posed to him. I repeatedly asked him why you couldn't do the job as I had estimated it. I told him if he had a reasonable, logical explanation as to why the job should be done his way I would gladly rewrite my estimate, note in the claim jacket why I was writing a supplement and write a supplemental draft right there on the spot. I even showed him my check book with the company name on it and everything. He continued to insult me and my company but would not address a single one of my questions.
That is not an isolated incident. On every wind or hail storm that I have worked I have run into roofers just like this one who take advantage of elderly insureds who don't know any better. I didn't have to speak to that roofer I did so because I wanted to give my insured every benefit of the doubt. I want to pay every dime that I owe and I am not perfect. I learn something new on just about every claim and occasionaly an honest roofer will show me something I don't know. I gave this roofer the chance to do just that but he realized he had been caught in a lie and didn't appreciate it one bit. But maybe from that little confrontation he will learn that some adjusters actually care about their insureds and want to do a thorough job. If that had been the only time something like this has happened to an adjuster on the job Jim wouldn't be asking you how long you have been a roofer. But Jim, being the seasoned adjuster that he is, has seen your breed all too often and knows the rules under which you operate. That's why it's important to establish whether or not you are a roofer, because it tells all of us adjusters here exactly who we are dealing with. Anoter whining roofer.
By your shucking and jiving and refusing to answer a simple question you have shown your true colors Mr. Sterling. We're on to you. I have to go, the Aggies are playing Pitt. I look forward to your response. |
|
|
|
ALANJ
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 13:07:41
|
Fraud is fraud, regardless of whom does it. What does the Fed. Privacy Act have to do with any of this? Did I miss something? Just because this guy is a roofer, doesn't automaticaly disqualify his opinion or the facts. Whatever the facts might be.
P.S. Ghost it's good to see you back. How are things in the triangle? |
|
|
|
ALANJ
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 14:49:19
|
Jim:
I only wanted to point out a bad thing is a bad thing. Wheather it's a roofing contractor overcharging or an insurance company under paying. Both are bad. I'm not trying to determine the accuarcy of the facts or allegations. There has been to little info posted here to determine that. As long as someone is willing to make the repairs based upon the amount paid then, the insurance company has done it's job. Our roofer buddy needs to read up on supply and demand. |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 17:16:40
|
There. It's now 4:15p central time and we've had a full day of fun. This catharisis has relived some pent up stress and enabled us to join together in a communal feeding frenzy much like a swarm of pirana fish.
Together, this is the key word. Thru this medium each of us has jointly contributed and benefited from this group effort. I know I feel better, I hope all of you do too. In that sense, we should thank ol' Lonnie for getting us started. |
|
|
|
RJ
32 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 20:37:27
|
Alan J
Lon Sterling brings the privacy act into play when he states that the proof that supports his position lies within Farmers insured’s claim worksheets (the worksheets are private) and he includes as proof the reference to the Farmer’s claim worksheets in his possession in this open discussion. Then expects a reply and support from the adjusting community based on this private information. While he does not get into specifics it appears from his demeanor it wouldn’t take long before Mr. Sterling would.
As for Jim’s question, Mr. Sterling still has not answered Jim’s question.
As for roofing contractors, well as any seasoned adjuster knows there are few in the roofing business that understand that most adjusters are not going to listen to them misstate roof damages as to why replacement is needed instead of repairs. I can not begin to count the times I have reviewed a prior claim and read a roofing contractor’s statement that a roof could not be repaired only to see on reinspection or reading a prior report while inspecting another claim only to observe that the roof was only repaired after settlement was made for replacement on the prior claim.
The labor cost difference between one or more layers of roofing for removal is relative minor because the all layers of roofing material are lifted from the nailable surface at the same time and usually gravity takes over taking the roof debris to the truck or dumpster . The major difference in cost is the disposal fee because this is based on weight translated into squares. |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2002 : 23:30:36
|
Prosecution's summation by Lon Sterling: Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The victim in this case was beaten simply for asking a question to a hostile crowd. He was kicked, head-butted, called names and compared to thieves because he asked this question. He merely asked a question that was taken verbatim from a document acquired through the Freedom of Information Act. A veritable hornet's nest of abusive behavior was thrust his way for revealing the document's existence. Many questioned the authenticity of the document. Others questioned it supposed breach of privacy. Not only did the perpetrators run over the victim several times, they actually backed up and ran over him again by double posting some of the insults. They even made fun of the guy's golf game and probably would have had something sarcastic to say about it being a charity event to help a Church Food Bank had they known. His question was simple and his facts were genuine. They could have been checked out through public records by ANYONE. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask that you find for my client who has been accused of guilt by association of everything from simian first cousins to cheating elderly immigrants. He has been threatened with the "Privacy Act" and told to forget about the lies told by insurance companies. He has even been told by the administrators that the thread will be locked after ONE rebuttal by him when the conversation he has posted is hardly as controversial or abusive as the conversation that is commonly used by the "in crowd" on this board. Ladies and gentleman, I ask you to return a verdict of guilty against the posters here for abuse, name-calling, violation of the PUBLISHED forum policies against such behavior and the brutal way dozens of people ganged up on the victim because he asked why Farmers lied. I rest my case and yield the rest of my time concerning this case before the court to the Insurance Industry's defense attorney, Mr. Jim Flynt.
Jim Flynt, "Good evening Judge Moderator and ladies and gentlement of the jury. I have but one brief closing statement, or make that a question, on behalf of the board. It is, How long have you been a roofer, Mr. Sterling? I rest my case! Ha Ha Ha!"
The sounds of tumultuous applause echo through the courtroom. Judge Moderator slams his gavel to the bench and promptly declares his judgement in favor of the posters while dismissing the jury. He says, "I mean the victim is probably a ROOFER like Mr. Flynt says! Do we REALLY need to know anything more?
I'm done for now. No thanks on the gratuitous "last chance rebuttal" offered by the moderator/censor/ whose restrictive actions remind me of the old Soviet TASS news agency director. I prefer to leave you all until next time with the above satire to ponder.
One final thought, Jim Flynt's rantings about my supposed heresy are as funny as those of Cornelius in the original "Planet of the Apes" movie. It remains a classic view of how a terrified group of animals creates their own safe little upside down world. Enjoy it. It's yours. You're free here to take pot shots at all the industries who interact with the Insurance Industry and when a little truth or healthy questioning of your methods enters, you can have the moderator give that person ONE MORE CHANCE to rebutt Cornelius' entire band of Gorillas. Have fun in the bubble Jim and others have so carefully created to protect you from the truth.
And Mods, thanks but no thanks on the one rebuttal offer. There were so many idiotic responses and so little time. I will laugh myself to sleep tonight after re-reading Jim Flynt's double post that only left out extra-terrestrial invervention as a possibility for typos and skewed verbiage in the Farmers letter. You know, I think the Lubbock Lights WERE seen that same evening. They must have been leaving the FIG offices after typing that bogus response! Yeah! That's the ticket! |
Lon |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2002 : 00:13:36
|
Amazing, in true roofer style, he didn't even answer a single question we posed to him.
Mr. Sterling, just because we don't take your selective airing of the evidence as gospel truth and we ask you questions to support your arguments you say we are ganging up on you. Deflect the question to try to confuse the issue, you must have watched the OJ trial closely.
You must have a guilty conscience Mr. Sterling because if you read my earlier posting closely you will see that I didn't acuse you of ripping off elderly immigrants. I merely stated that it was one of the many scams I have run into in my dealings with roofing contractors, an occupation you won't even admit to being affiliated with. By telling the story I was merely trying to explain why adjusters take everything a roofer says with a grain of salt. As the saying goes, believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see. If you can't answer the simplest of questions how can you expect us to believe any of what you say? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Must Farmers INSIST on misleading statements?
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
