1. Does anyone else get frustrated trying to explain recoverable depreciation and holdback to the insured?

2. How about trying to negotiate a repair cost with a contractor that has never prepared an insurance repair estimate. Do you get frustrated with it?

3. Supplements, What is standard procedure? Do you always go back for re-inspection and if you do you bill for it? Do you run every move you make by the staff adjuster?

Whew!!! This stuff drives me crazy. Theres got to be an easier way.

I have been handling daily claims and local storm claims for an IA firm in Wilmington, NC for 4 years, so my exposure is limited to this company and their procedures. Prior to adjusting I was a general contractor building custom homes and light commercial for 22 years.

1. It's a lot easier than explaining ACV only, non-recoverable depreciation. I just tell them that every policy has a "loss settlement" section. If there is RCV, they only pay RCV if those requirements are met (insured to value, loss under a stated dollar amount or the work is completed). You do enough of them, and you can recite it in your sleep.   The intent is to make sure the work gets done, and the Insured doesn't go to the casino with the settlement - they have to complete the repairs.  Naming the lender on the settlement is another issue, and they have an interest in the property.  Nobody likes it, but it's in the policy language.  It is the insuring agreement.

2. If the scope of repair is complete, nothing missing, and you are using good software, I personally believe there is enough food on the table. It's always the scope when there are differences. The people that aren't used to writing insurance type estimates are also not used to the "unit cost" system. So you get a one page proposal where I may have 20 pages of unit costs. I just tell the contractor that the insurance executive may not know construction, but he knows he isn't paying more than 70 cents a Sf for paint or whatever. And if you aren't explaining in detail what is or isn't being included for the proposal, it is like pulling a number out of your A** so you need to spell it out line by line.

3. It depends on the supplement. By definition, it should be an increase in the scope of repairs (not just "we need more money to do the same thing we already bid on".) If the reason for the supplement is crystal clear, you don't always have to go back out. Let's say you need to tear out a vanity because the cabinet is delaminating from water damage. It had a ceramic tile counter. You forgot to add for a "mortar bed" for the tile. Contractor calls - you look at your photos. Sure enough, there is a 3/4" radius around the edges of the back-splash tiles, so you know it was on a mortar bed - not just thin-set to the wall.  And you realize you left out the mortar bed for the backsplash and counter.

Or you gave them the vanity (toast) but didn't allow for detach-reset sink, and P-trap. That wouldn't require a trip out - your photos show those items and it was overlooked.

I was at a site last week for 4 hours that had so much water pouring out an upstairs toilet that the ceilings were falling down. It took a while to measure, and I saw the Green-Van people pulling drywall, vanities, etc. I happened to be there when 2 sinks broke because the thin-set or caulk wouldn't release the old sink out of the counter - so they had to be replaced rather than reset. But I was there to see it. If I bid to detach-reset and they had to call me to say it needed to be replaced... my trip back out there may cost more to the carrier than the difference in line item price. You just have to use common sense, and your clients needs. Day claim insurance carriers are very tight these days. It would have to be a questionable item before I made a 2nd trip out.

As usual your last post was very helpful to the whole adjusting community . Keep up the good work, Bob.

Thanks folks, appreciate it.

Boone, if you are still with us - I have another suggestion. There will always be some frustration and challenge associated with this job. I recommend just changing your mind. Instead of letting any of that stuff bother you - look at it like the pile of money that you are shoveling into your bank account.

Adopt the viewpoint that you are the one controlling the file. That becomes more of a reality to the degree you read the policy, and become certain of what you are doing. But just the fact of your construction experience (and 4 years as an adjuster) - that will put you above 1/2 the people doing your job.

So just adopt the attitude that you are in control, making recommendations, solving problems. You will find that the outside world will align to your stable position. It makes things much more simple if you are the point of reference to which other things are aligned.

I'm not talking about a slight change of direction - I am talking about a whole new road map.  A new paradigm.  A new way of looking at the job.  You make the rules, you make the recommendations.  And more often than not, people will agree with you.  And as long as you don't make a commitment to pay (when you don't have authority) you will be fine. 

Every estimate I write, every statement of loss that I propose, has these words at the bottom: "Subject to carrier approval"  "this is not an authorization for repairs or coverage".  At the end of the day, your estimate DOES get approved, and coverage IS provided.  But when you write the estimate - you don't have authority yet.  Remember that, and all will be well.