| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
quaker
3 Posts |
 Posted - 05/26/2003 : 18:22:04
|
| Does anyone use freeze-drying contractors to mitigate loss of wet documents, files or books? Or is it the common experience that these items are totalled or simply ignored? |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2003 : 20:30:42
|
The answer lies in the "value" of the commodity, and how that "value" is defined in the policy you are working with.
Vacuum freeze drying is considered the safest and most effective method for drying, but it is also the most expensive method. There are not a lot of vendors who have commercial vacuum freeze drying capabilities.
Have a look at the following link;
http://www.protext.net/tips/freeze.html
A google search of your problem will reveal a wide array of options. |
 |
|
|
quaker
3 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2003 : 21:23:27
|
| CCar: Thanks for the link, which was informative, but I was really interested in hearing about mitigation efforts in various markets where freeze-drying is and is not available. For example, I can see how water-damaged items may be a) declared totally lost in markets where freeze-drying is not locally available or b) even ignored completely and not covered if the adjuster and/or insured is not aware of mitigation options. However, in markets where freeze-drying IS available, is it being used? |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2003 : 21:37:21
|
| reality is that freeze drying is available anywhere there is refrigeration. Reefers can be used if mobility is a problem. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2003 : 21:42:07
|
Perhaps the larger question which should be addressed here as well, is whether there are policy sub-limitations and/or exclusions for coverage for certain documents, books and records.
I guess I am wondering what type of water damaged articles Quaker might be referring to in his scenario question? |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2003 : 22:10:09
|
Big difference Chuck in the "drying power" and effectiveness of "freeze drying" and "vacuum freeze drying".
Again Quaker, it is hard to get too specific due to the lack of detail or example of the commodity and values; hence how much "money" you have to work with via commodity values versus policy wording.
Your last question is the easiest. Where vacuum freeze drying is available and the value of the commodity warrants the cost, and there is sufficient indemnity provisions in the policy; it is being utilized. I am aware of this being done on larger commercial and institutional losses, with favorable results.
As to your question (a), it all depends on the quantum of the potential loss. Again a Google search provides an array of other options, if vacuum freeze drying is not readily available.
As to your question (b), ".... ignored .... not covered ...."? If the insured is not aware of mitigating methods for the commodities in question, that is understandable and excuseable. However, if an "adjuster" is not aware of mitigating methods for the commodites in question, and chooses therefore to "ignore" and / or whatever "not covered" implies; that is totally unacceptable to put it nicely. |
Edited by - CCarr on 05/26/2003 22:10:52 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2003 : 22:38:24
|
Clayton, your last sentence reads: However, if an "adjuster" is not aware of mitigating methods for the commodites in question, and chooses therefore to "ignore" and / or whatever "not covered" implies; that is totally unacceptable to put it nicely.
I'm not sure I understand what it is you're saying or trying to say.
Specifically, if the adjuster (under your scenario) correctly understands there is "no coverage" under the applicable policy for water damage to a document or documents, for the damaged article, what obligation does that adjuster reasonably have toward suggesting mitigation or recovery practices to an insured?
While I do agree with what I perceive to be your suggestion, that an adjuster should be aware of recovery and mitigation techinques, I also suggest that there are potential personal perils to that adjuster which involve estoppel (in a non-covered loss) when an adjuster starts suggesting recovery or repair techniques.
Whenever it becomes clear to me that I am dealing with a non-covered claim, I generally follow the advice contained within that old Jerry Butler song of "taking a bow and making an exit".
Clayton, am I missing something in reading your post or do we just see this scenario differently? |
Edited by - JimF on 05/26/2003 22:43:52 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2003 : 07:16:56
|
James, the Quaker question "(b)" stood out like a festered thumb, in his trilogy of "examples".
Certainly, if there was no coverage, an "adjuster" should keep their feet on the ground, and not in their mouth.
The Quaker's two posts with questions were related strictly to a claims mitigation technique, without regard to any other issues; with his 2nd post seeming much like a multiple choice question for an "adjuster's license", asking a reader to pick the one that "doesn't fit".
My comments were framed without regard to whether there was coverage or not,again as no indication either way was offered or suggested.
Perhaps in my answering Quake's "last question", I clarified the path to my conclusion, and continued with that premise for his question "(a)". Likely with that premise still in mind as I considered his question "(b)", with considerable distaste I stared at the complete sentence; "I can see how water damaged items may be even ignored completely and not covered IF the adjuster and / or insured is NOT AWARE of mitigation options". I still see this as a truly sad sentence when you look at it in total with my 'caps' emphasis.
I have seen too much of 'that' happening over the years, where quirks of loss scenarios or claim components, or coverage issues are "ignored"; because an "adjuster" did not know how to deal with a specific piece of the loss or a specific piece of coverage, or both.
My comments are generic to the claims industry, I don't care if Quaker is 'the insured' or an adjuster, or who the 'adjuster' may be. |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2003 : 09:27:20
|
| Several years ago a portion of the University of Arkansas - Little Rock library, books, was dryed using a reefer. I have dried books in a deep freeze. Once in a local meat locker. Certainly freezing paper documents will preserve them until other methods can be employed. |
|
|
|
quaker
3 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2003 : 21:08:58
|
Apologies to all for my lack of clariry.
My inquiries to adjusters in certain markets along the Gulf Coast about recovering water damaged printed materials--books, business records and medical records--were met with uncomfortable silence. None had ever recovered items of this nature. It later occurred to me that perhaps a significant portion of them were not aware of mitigation options when these claims arose. Or, perhaps they were aware and overlooked recovery of water damaged printed materials because the facilities and other, more valuable contents were higher on the priorty list. I can see how this can happen, even if coverage exists.
I am an economist analyzing water damage claims mitigation and simply wanted to know if vacuum freeze drying/restoration of these materials is a resource that used if availabe. |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 08:50:12
|
| The answer to your question, quaker, is yes. Freeze drying is done on a reqular basis. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Water-Damaged Documents and Books
Forum Locked
