| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
 Posted - 10/04/2002 : 10:33:27
|
This requires some input from Carriers, Vendors, PAs and last but not least Adjusters who can give us some advice and war stories.
All new Adjusters, this is a chance to ask questions.
I am not sure of the terminology, so if my questions or comments make no sense, I'll put the blame on someone else.
In this world of tort, what if anything can be done to cover ourselves through mitigation?
Who is responsible for the cost?
How would you handle potential hazards or conditions you detect
that could result in a claim later on?
Can mitigation transfer liability? The answer is yes, in the case of mold. If the home owner has a warranty from a Pest Control Operator
for termites and other wood destroying organisms, the PCO assumes responsibility. Most homeowners have only termite coverage, however WDOs could be added and in some states are included. The only exclusion is Formosan Termites (in most states}.
PCOs use very strict guide lines in the use of chemicles and exclusion of WDOs. The record speaks for itself. They do not have the claims or they could never afford the insurance
Should we inquire into the coverage the homeowner has with a PCO?
How about security systems?
Is this just making more work for all concerned?
Should mitigation be brought to the attention of "all" concerned?
Who is responsible for each phase of the process?
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2002 : 11:11:25
|
Yes, you best - "put the blame on someone else", personally I can not make sense of what you are trying to say.
Please quote policy wording that I could review, to consider your comment, " .... most homeowners have only termite coverage ....".
I'm lost with the rest of your post. |
 |
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2002 : 12:43:53
|
I didn't mean to infer that this was policy coverage. What I was trying to get over was the coverage by the PCO {pest control operator}. In fact this has nothing to do with the policy, except keeping it from being used in a claim due to some circumstance that
could have been prevented. I would think mitigation would be a topic
of importance, and I for one have decided to explore the subject.
If I have explained what I was trying to say, OK, if not I can remove it from the forum. Maybe someone else can give it a shot.
|
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2002 : 13:20:54
|
Mitigation - making things less intense or severe.
Yes, it is important with property claims.
First, when appropriate, for the adjuster to advise the insured of THEIR requirement to mitigate their damage, and if appropriate refer the insured to the applicable wording - of THEIR duties after a loss, where the concept of mitigation is found.
Then, the obligation, wether advised or not, lies with the insured to protect their property from further loss.
I don't know of any "war stories" relative to this contract requirement of the insured.
The cost of reasonable mitigation of covered damaged property, from a covered peril, is part of an acceptable claim.
I would not tend to go into any great detail or assist an insured, as to mitigation methods or aid in the procedures. If later, after you are gone, and those "expressed instructions" were misinterpreted or not followed properly; your efforts have not only been time consuming at each stop, but could bite you back in a later "he said / she said" exchange.
The responsibility for mitigation is clearly that of the insured. An adjusters "involvement" in it - past advisement of the insured's requirement, if deemed appropriate - is generally of no benefit to your productivity or effectiveness. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2002 : 21:57:34
|
| Here is the situation, we have many areas with no building codes. Also the hazards are many, freak ice storms,tornados, heat, thunderstorms,floods, huricanes, insects, fungi, wind storms and big trees that love to fall on houses. Not every dwelling will have a problem, the time it takes to document a problem is minimal. One summons could take all that time away that you save. If I saw a problem and held back, I feel my job was selfserving and not in the employers best interest. I guess I place more value on quality than most do. Quantity comes with experience, as everyone knows. Quality and quantity= money. I never had a problem keeping up. Some cases I can see where you would have to walk away, this is where judgement becomes the master. Without common sense and judgement I think we might work for McDonalds or go down and rustle some goats from Ghost Busters herd.(again) |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2002 : 09:17:43
|
Mitigation:Act of mitigating; aleviation
Mitigate: Moderate
Mitengator: German moderator on CADO forum |
|
|
|
Russ
USA
75 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2002 : 10:28:09
|
| Newt, think of every claim as your Mothers home! With the coverage afforded under her policy, how would you mitigate her loss? Every Carrier and even some Vendors have "COVER YOURS AND OUR ASS "guidelines. We as future Defendents in Law suits have to make sure we Afford to the Insured every way possible to mitigate their loss. We still may be Defendents when they dont mitigate, but at least we gave them the guidance and the money (WELL DOCUMENTED OF COURSE)to mitigate their loss properly. Its a new day out there!!! Have a great day and please work safe!!! |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2002 : 15:05:59
|
RUSS, thanks for your input, I didn't say it as well as you. I did go back over some of my Farmers Training guides and read the same thing
or at least to that effect. I don't consider COA as a waste of production. As I see it two of our most pressing needs in this business are communications and documentation, that goes for any dealings with the public or business unless it is Burger Doodle.
They have pictures on their cash registers. I got to get back on my claims programs, it is kind of tough even after the school without some actual stuff for input. I have done my house several times and I know when I get out there in the field it will be a whole new ball game. I can see a new ball game with every claim, just as it was with my former proffession. |
|
|
|
TomToll
USA
87 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2002 : 23:46:09
|
| Why not just advise the insured that under policy provisions, it is their responsibility to protect the insured property from futher damage, including structure and contents. Suggest they save receipts for material and labor if done by them and a receipt if done by a contractor. How many citizens know the word "mitigation". KISS |
Tom Toll |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2002 : 09:11:25
|
There is the problem, on the nail. If we have to study the policy to understand it, not just in days but years. How can the insurers expect the insured to understand it, without some serious reading, some do and most don't. Thats where we come in with communications.
We should be able to tell them what the statements in conditions mean, things we find wrong that will not be covered later on if a problem is allowed to exist.
After the fact is too late, a person will more likely be upset over the small print and go into denial. Nothing can change their mind
or opinion of the carrier, they figure they have been fleeced with wording and small print. I guess that is why most carriers want us to go over the policies with clients when working a claim.
In most cases the agent never does, the policy is mailed to the customer from the home office, therein lies another problem, and one we have to correct at the wrong time. You will never get behind the power curve being up front.
|
Edited by - Newt on 10/06/2002 09:19:34 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
MITIGATION
Forum Locked
