I'm not quite sure what you mean by "appropriate adjustment", but, let's assume that means that they missed something or there is a material pricing issue.
[highlight=#ff0000]To say they missed something would be an understatement. What i mean by "appropriate adjustment" is one that includes any and all work that needs to be completed in order to indemnify the homeowner in the event they suffer a loss. There is no reason why i should be able to make supplements using the same price list and reach agreed settlements that add 3k to 15k to any claim.[/highlight]
Anything they miss, they should pay for plain and simple. The only caveat to that are code issues, because the underlying insurance policy will need to have "code" upgrade coverage. If it doesn't then they didn't miss it. Pricing issues should be pretty simple, the cost of shingles is off, show them the supplier invoice.
[highlight=#ff0000]I agree with you on part of this, however, in dfw the only policies i have run into that do not have the ordinance of law endorcement are trailer house policies. Never show them your invoice.[/highlight]
What this thread puts on the table is that a policyholder has a check in hand, but, wants to wait to do their repairs. Then, the contractor that they chose after sitting on the check wants more money because of legitimate price increases.
[highlight=#ff0000]Maybe the homeowner had a feeling the insurance company had underpaid. Maybe he or she took a few weeks to research companies. Maybe it took the insurance company 2 or 3 weeks to get the paperwork back to the homeowner. (i have personally had some customers who did not their paperwork for over a month.) I have claims from April that we have yet to install because the insurance companies are dragging their feet in reaching settlements.[/highlight]
In that scenario, I think that's a difficult argument with any insurer for a supplement. There are always going to be exceptions and you have to look at things on a case by case basis.
[highlight=#ff0000]Case by case basis would mean the homeowner hired a contractor that bid the job using current pricing. If the homeowner has a replacement cost policy, the insurance company should pay what it costs to get the roof repaired based on the date of installation. Xactimate can be a double edged sword, Live by the sward die by the sword.[/highlight]
If I total my car, but wait a year to replace it, do they owe me more money if the cost to replace my car rises? If you put an order to buy a truck load of shingles with one of your suppliers today at $75 per square for shingles and they sit on the order; should you pay the increase when truck arrives?
[highlight=#ff0000]Depends on your policy, but the answer could be yes based on the policy provisions. The answer to your second questions is no, but that is not the same. You are purchasing materials in real time. The insurance companies are not, they are negligently underestimating and only releasing a portion of the payment due to the homeowner. It might be a little different if the insurance companies payed accurately at the time of the loss.[/highlight]
If by some miracle, pricing drops, should the insurance company get some money back?
[highlight=#ff0000]It is possible, somehow in Waco TX the per shingle price dropped $3.00 a sq from May to June and the final estimate ended up lower.[/highlight]
The one year clause in the insurance policy pertains to only to recoverable depreciation and the time frame that you can recover. It has no bearing on any costs of the claim.
[highlight=#ff0000]It is also a way for the insurance companies to regulate their customers. If a homeowner does not collect the depreciation, it triggers the underwriters to investigate the property and make demands of proof or repairs etc. I have seen one homeowner that was paid nothing because the adjusters estimate was below the deductible. They then sent out an inspector from underwriting and made the homeowner purchase a roof out of pocket.[/highlight]
You mentioned Unfair claims practices and that is such a ubiquitous term. What does it really mean. They are so different from state to state.
[highlight=#ff0000]Pursuant to the Insurance Code §542.003(a), an insurer engaging in business in this state may not engage in an unfair claim settlement practice. Not attempting in good faith to effect a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim submitted in which liability has become reasonably clear constitutes an unfair claim settlement practice under the Insurance Code §542.003(b)(4).
Your state likely has a simular code.
You are correct about this however, its hard not to be an unfair claim practices when you include the following email embedded in your estimate and they continue to not make allowances for items that you send in with photo documentation.
Thank you for your inquiry. Xactware’s published pricing for roofing items is not ‘all inclusive.’ For example, items for roofing shingles (RFG 220, RFG 300, etc.) include shingles, felt, nails. As they are originally published in Xactimate pricelists, they do not include any cost or assumptions for hip/ridge, drip edge, valley or other roof flashing, pipe jacks, roofing vents, steep/high charges, sales taxes, etc. If needed, these items should be added or accounted for separately in the estimate.
Structural Data Services
If you and I disagree is it an Unfair claim practice? Certainly not. There are standards in place, but, if you get a hurricane or catastrophe, those standards get loosened simply because man power is always limited.
[highlight=#ff0000]It is not unfair claim practice for us to disagree. It is unfair to not include items that are there, it's also unfair to only pay for replacement. How the hell do you replace something without first removing it?
You and i will probably agree on many parts of this business. This will have to be one of those issues that we don't.
If the insurance companies want to start using their software appropriately at the time of the initial estimate my opinion might change.[/highlight]
[mod="japoax"]edited this to remove harmful effect [/mod]