I find it difficult to belielve the "defendant' vendor, a well-known catastrophe adjusting firm in our industry, did not pay over 1,000 adjusters for their hard work.  This case will not be played out on this forum (or any other I can think of) and we will only hear the other side in court documents.  Like many other class actions, only the lawyers win out at the end of the day.  I only pray that when the TRUTH comes to light, either those adjusters find their short-sightedness a learning experience or"he who owes" ante's up!

what a mess. I always figured you worked for what you hired on at. I have a hard time believing a good company like Worley who has been around for a long time Would do as they say they are . This could really bite these adjusters in the ARSS!

Posted By Montana Goldust on 10 Feb 2011 11:42 AM

WELL THE FIGURES MADE ME A LITTLE CURIOUS. MY CALCULATOR SAYS 12 HOURS PER DAY TIMES $68.75 EQUALS $825 PER DAY. FARTHER DOWN IN THE ARTICLE IT SAYS THEY ONLY RECEIVED  $550 A DAY.  MAYBE I DIDN'T READ IT CORRECTLY BUT THESE FIGURES ARE JUMPING AROUND AN AWFUL LOT. IF YOU TAKE THE 17% HE SAYS THEY WERE SHORTED PER DAY THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO $140.28.

if they were to be paid 65% of the $825 , That comes out pretty close to what they say they were paid. I would like to know if they signed a contractural agreement for the amount talked about...

 

The agreement was $450/day and an additional $100/day per diem if you lived more than (I may be wrong) 50 miles from the office you were assigned to work. The $68.75 sounds like base rate to me, and given the nature of these claims (primarily BI) that sounds reasonable; once the claims started coming in they got more and more complicated (a lot of these claimants ran cash businesses and under-reported their incomes for tax purposes) but if you agree to work BI claims for X dollars a day, then you work BI claims for X dollars a day; again, if that day is defined as 12 hours, then it's 12 hours 

To Roy and John    The BP adjusters signed an agreement to work 12 hours per day 7 days a week for a flat rate + expenses.  Now they complain they are entitled to more compensation for working over 40 hrs per week.  You do the math 12 hrs / day X 7 days is 84 hrs  clearly more than 40,  but they agreed to the rate when they took the job.  Unfortunately, adjusters do not have a union bargaining clause;  even so,   would discount the courts awarding more than a signed contract agreement.  I am sure this class was created by greedy plt lawyers  why not everyone else sues  Maybe we should apply to Feinberg for some work as it looks like 1,300 adjusters might be out of work.

Federal law is federal law and a valid contract has to be legal.

Additionally the Worley contract is a contract of adhesion, allegatory in nature, to be construed against the writer.

Plus Louisiana has interesting labor laws.

Based on personal observation my best guess is that Worley is on the hook here.

If Worley is on the hook for this wouldn't every insurer also be on the hook for paying adjusters a daily rate which is a very common occurrence.  I may be naive but I would have to believe that companies such as State Farm, Allstate, Liberty Mutual, etc., have much smarter people on their legal teams than those that will comment on this story.  It is always understood that when one works on day rate that it is for twelve hours of work.

Also, it would be very easy for BP and Worley to claim that the first 8 hours of the day were paid at (N) amount of dollars and the last four were paid at (N)x1.5.

$550 per day is not bad considering the lack of work out there for many IAs these past couple of years.  However, I am not sure what the customary pay is for these types of claims.  I thought a day rate is just that, a day rate. 

Posted By olderthendirt on 10 Feb 2011 03:16 PM
Go back and read up on the wage claim vs Pilot after Northridge. Same old same old and they will probably win.

I didn't even work the Northridge CAT and received class action status on that wage claim.  I was working the ice storms from the Jan/94 storm at a daily rate on the east coast.  One day around 98 or 99 I got a check in the mail for 4k.  

some day some lawyer will file a class action against all the cat. vendors, joint and several and all hell will be created, as many will not have funds and this will kill off the big boys; almost

Roy, thanks for posting this information. We now have the Complaint docs on both cases uploaded on this blog post:

http://dimechimes.wordpress.com/201...e-part-ii/

Quote below from a related article in the The Times-Picayune.

Three class-action lawsuits have been filed against the Hammond company that processed and evaluated oil spill damage claims for BP and still does so for Kenneth Feinberg's Gulf Coast Claims Facility.

...a second case on behalf of the current and former Worley adjusters, claiming the company failed to live up to a contractual obligation to pay its adjusters a 65-percent commission on what Worley billed BP contractor ESIS. The state lawsuit filed by five other former Worley adjusters makes the same allegation, contending that ESIS paid Worley $1,200 a day for each adjuster. A 65-percent commission would have yielded the adjusters at least $812 a day, but Worley paid them no more than $550 a day, the suits contend.

Worley said it is committed to treating its employees fairly and within the law.

Click here to read the article.

I'm not a legal expert, but I think what you might be missing is the distinction between being an independent contractor and an employee.  There probably wouldn't be anything wrong with this arrangement, if the workers were independent contractors. However, they were employees, and my understanding is that are two classes of employees:  those that are salaried and those that work on an hourly rate.  If the adjusters weren't salaried, they are hourly workers, and, therefore, entitled to OT.

Posted By Rlynch on 19 Feb 2011 06:14 PM
The rate was $350 plus hotel.. If your room rate was $89.00 + Tax= $98.00 you only got $98.00 for your hotel/room.. Only about 150 adjusters got $450.00 + hotel..
What I am told is that Worley made an agreement for $1250-$1300.00 per day for each adjuster. The adjuster would receive 65% of that total, about $850.00 per day. Now most of the adjusters only made $350.00 + hotel per day.. Lets just round it up to $450.00. Now if Worley made the deal and kept the other half of the money, wouldn't that be fraud?
Please keep in mind that no one has seen the agreement made by Worley with the government.
Now for the overtime, I bet that not one of you knew that Worley was taking out Taxes on the Day Rate. Does that make them employees? I am not sure, you tell me.
It sure is going to be interesting to see the outcome on this one..
FYI there is about 800 people in Richmond VA. that are not adjusters doing claims for the GCCF at $12.00-$12.50 per hour. That I do know.

The adjusters were told upfront that they get 450.00 a day (350 Day rate) and reimbused up to 100 a day. If these adjusters agreed to that, what difference does it make how much Worley is getting paid. I am sorry but these adjusters do not deserve 800 a day for pushing paper. I had quite a few of my guys get picked up for the Worley gig and of the 10, 8 had never adjusted claim one.

RLynch, Worley can keep all they want!!! Look at it this way, after katrina, the government  made a 25 million dollar deal with company X to collect and dispose of the tons of debris that desecrated lower Louisiana they made a deal for 25 million. That company then subcontracted another company to do the debris removal for 15 Million who in turn makes a deal with the company who will actually do the work for 10 Million. The first company pocketed 10 million dollars for ZERO work. the second company made made 5 million without doing anything ! That's not illegal, the deal with the Government is irrelevent  

 

Posted By Roy on 09 Feb 2011 04:03 PM

NEW ORLEANS (CN) - A class of more than 1,000 oil spill claims adjusters say they worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay for BP and Worley Catastrophe Response. Lead plaintiff John Altier sued on behalf of an estimated class of 1,300, who were hired to research and pay claims to victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster.

Altier says that he and the class "were paid at a daily rate of pay. Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated claims adjusters were specifically paid the daily rate of pay for a 12-hour day. Based on that rate of pay, the plaintiff's hourly wage was $68.75 per hour."

He says that he and the class "worked significantly more than 40 hours in most workweeks." He adds that they were not supervisors nor administrators, were not paid "on a salary basis," and were not exempt from overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

However, he says, "defendants never paid plaintiff, or any other similarly situated claims adjusters any overtime, at time-and-a-half their regular rate of pay."

The above is a quote from an article on courthousenews.com, http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/.../34026.htm

The funny thing is all of these adjusters knew before they left that the rate was 350 + 100 towards hotel expense and that they were going to be pulling 12 hours a day 7 days a week.

The fact is that most of the adjusters working have never adjuster a claim in their life. Freakin newbies are now crying for more money because they did actually work 12 hours a day, thats a joke. Paying rookie adjusters 800 a day is laughable, they are cry babies. What a great reference to put on their resume when they say that they sued the IA firm who deployed them because you felt you were worth 800 a day. Those folks are done in this industry if they do this. Most clean up adjusters on day rates and who are doing REAL claims get 500 to 600 a day. Tell me how that's NOT ridiculous. I would NOT hire a new adjuster who sued Worley , I don't think anybody will

 

Posted By WILLIS on 10 Feb 2011 01:02 PM

To Roy and John    The BP adjusters signed an agreement to work 12 hours per day 7 days a week for a flat rate + expenses.  Now they complain they are entitled to more compensation for working over 40 hrs per week.  You do the math 12 hrs / day X 7 days is 84 hrs  clearly more than 40,  but they agreed to the rate when they took the job.  Unfortunately, adjusters do not have a union bargaining clause;  even so,   would discount the courts awarding more than a signed contract agreement.  I am sure this class was created by greedy plt lawyers  why not everyone else sues  Maybe we should apply to Feinberg for some work as it looks like 1,300 adjusters might be out of work.

I agree 100% Willis, think about this, these rookie adjusters are suing essentially for 800 a day for something they already agreed to do for

450(350+100) 
I know plenty of adjusters with 20+ years of experience  who are working clean up doing REAL claims on a day rate of 500 to 600. How does a rookie think he deserves more than that?

Why would they hire only Newbie adjusters?  I knew of many experienced adjusters that were out of work that seemed to be ready and willing to go down there but never received the call. 

I once heard that there are times when people with experience  ask to many questions and  know what questions to ask. Mind you that is just hear say.

Worley works the same way as any other business, family first, friends second, local people third and if there are any slots left, newbies and some experienced people.

One of the problems is that most cat adjusters are short on Business Interruption experience.

Posted By ChuckDeaton on 20 Feb 2011 11:27 PM

Worley works the same way as any other business, family first, friends second, local people third and if there are any slots left, newbies and some experienced people.

One of the problems is that most cat adjusters are short on Business Interruption experience.

I agree that many CAT adjusters do not have a great deal of experience in working BI claims. However, the rookie adjusters who have never worked a claim let alone a BI claim were hired in bulk despite zero BI experience

If this isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is !!

Read the text in bold , whattya think ?

More questions than answers seem to be arising from the recent revelation of how BP oil spill claims are being handled by the Gulf Coast Claims Facility and its Director Ken Feinberg.

A former claims adjuster clarified one major issue, which has come to light in the processing of claims and how claimants are classified on a scale of zero to ten.

“A lot of things depend on what category you are classified in,” said Kelly Johnson, a former large loss adjuster working with BP who now is helping claimants with his own business, Northwest Florida Consultants. “You are being classified on the scale depending on your profession like a doctor, dentist, wholesale grocery supplier, casino worker, cashier, waitress, etc.

“As they are putting the information in the category chosen will stop the claim and not let them go any further.”

This kind of transparency is just one of the issues noted in a Feb. 4 letter to Feinberg from Thomas J. Perrelli, who is with the U.S. Justice Department in Washington, D.C.

“I urge you once again to make the GCCF’s process more transparent,” said Perrelli in the letter to Feinberg on page two. “The period you have provided for public comment on the final payment methodology is important, and I know that you will take the feedback received on that proposed methodology very seriously.

“It is similarly important the claimants have an understanding of why their claims are handled as they are, and I ask the GCCF find ways to provide additional information about its decisions.”

Johnson pointed out the rating system used by the GCCF is a violation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

He also explains how the process used by the GCCF is greatly different than what was employed while he was working with BP.

“Every claim stood on its own merit,” Johnson said. “I would fill out my forms and do my math to calculate what I figured the claimant deserved. These would be reviewed by an accountant and BP management and then finish building the claim.

“If my calculations were wrong they would tell me why and explain why the claim would be less or if there was a mistake and in favor of the claimant, then they could have me correct my paperwork and the process the request form to get them a check.”

Johnson pointed out the claims have far reaching effects due to the nature of some businesses.

One such business he is working with was a now closed Gulf Seafood Shop in Branson, Mo.

“This business would send trucks to south Alabama to get seafood and then drive back to Missouri in their refrigerate trucks with its product,” Johnson said. “They turned in a claim and had it denied because they do not have a commercial fishing license.

“In the beginning of this process each claim stood on its own and there was no line drawn to determine who should and who should not receive a check from a claim.”

Emergency payments is just one of the concerns, which the justice department took issue with, as does Johnson.

“The interim payment process must be efficient, fair and straight forward,” Perrelli said. “When a small business files for its interim claim every three months, and then waits 90 days for the claim to be resolved, its cash flow is already running six months behind.”

Representative Doug Broxson, who’s trip to Dublin, Ohio on Monday, brought more questions to light about the claims process wants everything to be crystal clear with the GCCF.

“We have been through major disasters here and dealt with insurance claims,” Broxson said on Monday. “We need the adjusters here to make the decisions on the ground.

“Doing that would help bring more transparency to the process and establish some level of fairness.”

Feinberg himself set a date for emergency (interim) claims as Nov. 23, but he did not set a date for document evidence. The U.S. Justice Department set that date as Dec. 14.

“Mr. Feinberg has said that 75 percent of all claims denied were for no or not enough documents,” Johnson said. “Around Dec. 4, I read an article in NOLA.com that said 65,000 claims has been denied. Two weeks later that number grew to over 350,000.

“How can you accurately process that many claims in that short of time? From my understanding at the time the GCCF were already two to three weeks behind entering in the documentation they had received.”

Amy Weiss, who handles media requests for Feinberg, responded about the large jump in a span of two weeks.

“We denied thousands of claims that either lacked any documentation or had woefully inadequate documentation,” Weiss said. “We also have at least 7000 claims filed that are seemily fraudulent.”

Back on Jan. 6, Rep. Broxson held a town hall meeting at Oriole Beach Elementary School in Gulf Breeze, prior to that meeting the figures from the GCCF website there have been 156,366 claimants in the state of Florida. Of those 122,160 were individual claims.

So far the GCCF claims they have paid out 68,172 claims with payouts nearing $1.1-billion in the state.

In a separate fund of Real Estate Brokers and Agents $29-million has been deposited, while over $1.040-billion has been paid to the claimants.

Most of these payments have been in the form of an emergency advance payment to individuals where roughly 33% of the claims have been paid.

Of the 149,516 only 54,928 have been paid, while business have fared better with 21,174 of the 41,327 business claims have been paid.

Broxson even went so far to address a letter to Feinberg on Jan. 24, following this meeting and had three requests of the BP Claims Fund Administrator, which went unanswered.

· Close down your Dublin, Ohio, office and open a central claims office on the gulf coast.

· Allow your 33 claims offices the complete authority to adjust and pay claims up to $50,000. Refer claims over $50,000 to your newly created Gulf Coast central claims center.  Please note that such a system has worked for dozens of major insurance companies for decades in paying claims resulting from major catastrophes, particularly hurricanes in our area.

· Create a regional advisory committee to advise you on how to continually perfect the claims paying system.

A copy of the letter Perrelli wrote to Feinberg on Feb. 4 is available online at www.srpressgazette.com

It's apparent more clarification needed.  There were more than 400 Claims Adjusters that were licensed and experienced that made up the Large Loss group.  They were the first group to be cut.  Why?  $550/day plus up to $100/day for lodging.  They were paid as follows:  $450/day TAXED and $100/day on 1099.  Now, the general claims group and the call center folks and claims intake were paid $450/day and up to $100/day lodging reimbursed.  Their pay was $350/day TAXED and $100/day on 1099.  All hotel expenses were reimbursed every two weeks.  When I say TAXED, they had all "employee type" deductions such as FICA, Medicaid, Social Security AND Louisiana State Income Tax.  Even if you were in a field office in another state... still paid that LA state income tax.

The folks they kept... many inexperienced and most remain unlicensed!  How bout that!  That gal that previously worked at McD in NM was thrilled at $450/day.

BTW, they made everyone remaining sign a new contract and reduced all their pay to $425/day.  Too bad for the few that remained at $450.

Conflict of Interest?  Really?

My hats off to this guy... He was cut from the program, but knew there was still more good he could do.  Tens of thousands are yet to be addressed and the system seems to be rewarding the Administrator, the contractors and the attorneys.  I thought the fund was set up for the people who suffered losses.  Get the job done Johnson, one claim at a time. 

Needless to say, the contract says...  employee will never engage in business.... DURING his/her employment or association with.....

Conflict?  Really?  That's like saying, once you work a storm with Pilot, etc., you can never work in the same position  with another company.  Or, if you were a roofing contractor or general contractor, now you're deployed, focus on your IA work exlusively, yes.  But when you're done, you can't go back to being a roofing contractor/GC, etc.

Does that make sense.

There are other former adjusters doing the same as this guy and very legit.  And then there's others, maybe not so. 

Here is a link to an update and copy of court documents on this class action case. A federal judge has denied the class on the federal case (seperate from Louisiana class) due to problems with the employment contracts- some had one, some did not, others had one but from other assignments and not specific to the BP assignments:

https://dimechimes.wordpress.com/20...documents/

Sorry my friend but your information is innaccurate and lame and your mother dresses you funny (Humor)

You cannot work for the carrier on a specific claim or insured and then quit the carrier and start representing that same insured as a PA, advocate or whatever.

Posted By RepublicOfTX on 28 Feb 2011 07:09 PM

Conflict of Interest?  Really?

My hats off to this guy... He was cut from the program, but knew there was still more good he could do.  Tens of thousands are yet to be addressed and the system seems to be rewarding the Administrator, the contractors and the attorneys.  I thought the fund was set up for the people who suffered losses.  Get the job done Johnson, one claim at a time. 

Needless to say, the contract says...  employee will never engage in business.... DURING his/her employment or association with.....

Conflict?  Really?  That's like saying, once you work a storm with Pilot, etc., you can never work in the same position  with another company.  Or, if you were a roofing contractor or general contractor, now you're deployed, focus on your IA work exlusively, yes.  But when you're done, you can't go back to being a roofing contractor/GC, etc.

Does that make sense.

There are other former adjusters doing the same as this guy and very legit.  And then there's others, maybe not so.