[quote=“InsurerPerspective”]I dont think
Perhaps we have reached the heart of the matter in your first three words.
the Texas bulletin has anything to do with trying to kill supplements. Supplements are a by-product of a bigger problem.
**You’re correct. Supplements are the by-product of a bigger problem. A supplement, as defined in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary is as follows:
1 a: something that completes or makes an addition.
The online dictionary defines it as “something added to complete a thing.”
Now if supplements are a by-product of a bigger problem (of which I agree with you 100%) and a supplement is something that is added to complete a thing I think we can easily identify what the bigger problem is, can’t we? Just what exactly is a supplement supplementing? Does not a supplement actually “supplement” the original insurance adjuster’s scope of loss? I believe we have identified the “bigger problem.”**
The bulletin is trying to put an end to the widespread practice of storm chasers actually handling all aspects of claims, many of which are questionable, for building owners. The problem is rampant…“we will get you a free roof”, “we are insurance negotiation experts”, etc. They handle all aspects of the claim. The insurer never even sees or hears from its insured. Let’s be honest. Guy knocks on your door and says…“Sign this and I will get you a free roof from your insurance company. You dont have to do anything”…most building owners are going to sign it. Regardless of whether the roof actually has damage.
I’m not sure I understand why this is a problem from an insurer’s perspective. If there is no damage the adjuster will come out and deny the claim. By the same token, I have inspected many damaged properties where an insurance adjuster has already done his/her inspection and missed all kinds of damage. I have done hundreds of take offs and I can within a reasonable degree of certainty tell you that the % of properly scoped damage take offs coming from insurance adjusters is in the low single digits.
The problem in this situation is that the roofer’s incentive is to get jobs and maximize profits.
A roofer’s incentive is to get jobs and maximize profits and that is a problem in your eyes? So tell me, just why exactly do you think a roofer is in business if it’s not to get jobs and maximize profits? Isn’t this the reason any contractor is in business? Is it possible that an insurance company has the same incentive, to sell policies and maximize profits? Would you consider that a problem too?
Questionable claims are pursued.
By the same token unquestionable claims are denied or seriously lacking in proper scope.
Estimates are high.
By whose standards? Xactimate’s? The insurance companies? A contractor’s estimate is going to be high compared to yours because you have absolutely no clue what it takes to get the job done. You open up your Xactimate program, do your sketches and insert your boilerplate macro that is given to you and try to BS the homeowner into taking your lowball offer.
Conversely, the building owner’s incentive is merely to fix his damage, if there is any,
His incentive is also to have his damage fixed properly and by a contractor he trusts to do the work.
and be put back in the same place he was before the storm.
You better be careful here. Have you ever approved only half of a roof? Did not the building owner have shingles that were the same age, made by the same manufacturer and have the same color on his entire property before the storm?
This is also the insurer’s obligation under its policy.
If indeed the insurer’s obligation under its policy is to put the property owner back in the same place he was before the storm, then the homeowner should have shingles that are the same age, made by the same manufacturer and have the same color on his entire property as before the storm.
The involvement of the roofer, or any contractor, in the claims negotiation process changes the dynamics.
**Sure it does. It means the homeowner actually has an expert telling him what it is legitimately going to cost to get the repairs done. How many roofs have you installed? How many square feet of carpet or vinyl flooring have you installed? How many windows have you replaced? How much plumbing or electrical work have you done? How many flooded or fire/smoke damaged houses have you restored? Do you take the time to do a ventilation analysis for the homeowner? Do you tell them that the three box vents they have on their roof is inadequate and the local building code actually requires 8? Do you tell them that they have the ordinance or law endorsement, explain to them that with that endorsement their insurance policy will actually pay to have those extra vents installed on their roof even though they are not there now?
Your right. Having a contractor involved does change the dynamics. It means the homeowner is less likely to get screwed.**
Claims handled by building owners themselves proceed very differently than claims handled entirely by roofing contractors on behalf of homeowners.
**Building owners themselves are for the most part NOT experts on what it takes to get their property repaired and therefore are more susceptible to having another NON-EXPERT tell them they are paying them enough to get the job done.
I will add another comment here. I do not believe that any claim should be handled entirely by a contractor. It is the homeowner’s property and they are the ones who make the ultimate decisions about what gets done and who does it. **
The latter is the practice this bulletin seeks to end. If someone wants help with their claim, they can hire an attorney or public adjuster (both of which operate under highly regulated schemes).
Answer me one simple question here. How many times have you ever recommended to one of your policyholders that they hire an attorney or a public adjuster?
Now with that said, in some claims the roofing contractor plays a valuable role in assisting the building owner and the insurer–there can be a productive dialogue. In those cases, the insurer turns a blind-eye and doesn’t complain about the contractor being involved in what could be called “negotiations”. Scope of repair and cost of repair is agreed to. The claim gets worked out.
The damage is repaired. And everyone is happy. This happens all the time doesn’t it? But when the roofer completely handles a claim where there is no real damage or (and) submits crazy inflated pricing, this bulletin and its underlying statute step in and allow the insurer to request that it negotiate only with its insured.
Can you also cite the statute that steps in and helps out a homeowner when an insurer completely denies a claim where there is real damage or (and) submits crazy deflated pricing? Or perhaps it is at this point that you recommend to the homeowner that they hire an attorney or public adjuster?