Posted the following on Facebook earlier today and received a number of positive responses.
About time to call for a nationwide forensic inspecton of insurance paid engineering companies whose “expert” opinions far too often result in maliciously denied property owner wind and hail damage claims?
CAT Adjuster opinions from 3RS Profit MAX / The Playbook:
Although the names have been changed, the following quotes are from actual CAT adjusters taken from various online CAT adjuster forums (for those who may not be familiar with the term ,“CAT” stands for Catastrophe).
CAT adjuster “Bob” - “It has been my experience that carriers work using the theory of large numbers. They will continue to settle claims “slightly” unfairly as long as they have some engineering company that advances a bogus theory as to why the damage is from another source. This eliminates most of the chance they might be sued for bad faith since they are relying on an ‘expert’. Again, no matter what the insurance company or engineering company preaches, mat fracture is not required for there to be damage to roofing shingles and membranes, it only requires coating fracture or bruising that permits the onset of UV degradation. And, this is the important thing. TDI (Texas Department of Insurance) agrees and so would any one who had an open mind.
I recently acted in a consultant capacity on a commercial loss where destructive testing was skipped by(engineering company) and a ‘Fluff’ report claimed no damage. Destructive testing later proved that the damage was real, widespread, and caused by hail. Once the insurance company saw that more in depth report, they paid the claim with out so much as demanding an appraisal, arbitration or mediation.
In my opinion, (engineering company’s) very provable (by court records) biased ‘outcome-based engineering’ that some times reaches a figure of as much as a 94% record of finding no covered peril damage, will soon get them in some real hot water. Then the carriers who use them should follow because of their complicity in the ‘tag team’ match.”
CAT adjuster “LS” – “That is an excellent point and I will most readily admit that you have a very good body of experience to uphold a major portion of that assumption. It would be true that insurers wouldn’t need an engineer when the claimant agreed. I would suggest that the 94% may be accurate on agreement between (engineering company) and insurers because of one court case involving 82 foundation claims and another where (engineering company) was disqualified as not being disinterested when it came to certain (insurance company) cases because the insurance company already had a pretty good certainty of the way the engineering company would opine before they were sent out.
My reason for stating that is the unwillingness of most carriers to question (engineering company) theories. In my opinion, the effort to please insurers and to create a demand for their C.E. materials taints (engineering company) necessity to be perceived as impartial.”
Can’t imagine it would take much effort to find any number of attorneys from across the country who might be interested in filing a multi-million dollar class action once the evidence is presented. Thoughts?
Feel free to post the name of the 3rd party insurance company paid engineering company you believe is most deserving of scrutiny.