Irrespective of the policy forms and endorsements, do you always apply the same criteria for general contractor overhead and profit, (applied when 3 or more trades are involved). That criteria being when overhead and profit is included, do you always pay 10% and 10% on an “ACV” basis regardless of the type of policy or endorsements?  

There has been litigation on this subject.  Not all carriers view this the same way. 

Unless a specific carrier is instructing you otherwise, if O&P is allowed on a repair, then 10 & 10 on the ACV should be allowed.  For example that is the default result you would get if you did the estimate in Xactimate.

There has also been litigation on the "3 trades" rule, and I think the one involving State Farm came out with a ruling along the lines of O&P whenever it is reasonably expected that a General Contractor would be needed to do the repair.  So that is not a hard and fast rule that you have to have 3 trades. 

You will find policies and endorsements that comment on ACV, but I'm not aware of any that specifically describe or limit O&P.  I believe that carriers who had a standard practice of refusing O&P prior to completion of repair have gotten their hands slapped.

I worked State Farm claims at Katrina for 5 months and they allowed O&P on the ACV of the claim, if that is your question...

The litigation regarding when to allow O&P was prior to Katrina.

Hi Joseph, gotcha on how it works in Florida.

Over the years I have had many carriers do that same requirement, but more often in California these days the carriers seem to be OK on paying O&P on the adjusted value of ACV claim.

For those who are into boring reading, here is an article that summarizes some of the issues  http://www.adjustersinternational.com/ATpdf/3032_Overhead_and_Profit.pdf 

as I mentioned earlier on this thread, not all carriers view this the same way. You have to "dance with the one that brought ya".

Here's another one,  http://news.public.findlaw.com/andrews/m/icr/20060613/20060613watkins.html
13 Million dollar verdict, and this was a part of the allegations:

As a staff Catastrophe adjuster for one of the large companies I can tell you that we have pretty strict standards when it comes to O&P.  Usually to be considered for O&P a claim has to be over 20 thousand dollars and there must be extensive covered damage to both the inside and outside of the structure.  These claims are usually fire claims and large tornado/hurricane claims.  Usually your standard hail/wind claims do not qualify for O&P under our guidlines.  For example, if an insured has hail damage to roof, gutters, window screens, siding, and paint on the outside of their home we would not allow O&P.  The claim is not complex enough for the insured to require a general contractor.  In most cases the roofing companies will do all of the work as a lot of roofing companies also do siding, gutters, etc.  This especially when you have the storm chasers working the storm and going door to door soliciting claims.  That is why one of the first questions the storm chaser will ask you is if you allow O&P on 3 or more trades.  They will always "find damage" to  include roof, paint, siding, and gutters thus ensuring that more than 3 trades are represented even though their crew will do all the work.  

Something is "odd" about tornado damage not standing out for an experienced adjuster.  A  lot of structural damage would be very apparent.

If it was a liability claim from blasting, I bet the liability adjuster could find find some witness that would tell a story of this "leaning house" was a condition before this storm . The lean/ rack may not be related to weather, or this weather event. I will also guess the Haig report and opine is along this line. Bet this case is reversed on appeal. My 2 cents.

This is kinda off topic.... The adjuster looks at a loss and does an accurate scope and detailed estimate. When he gets his mail he finds an estimate for roof shingles on and off $, gutter repairs$, drywall ceiling repairs $, ceiling paint $ clean up and trash haul $. It is signed by the contactor the insured selected and will use to do the work for a total of $1,000.00 less than the adjusters estimate that is due when the work is complete.

 1.Do you say the estimate is not detailed enough and not acceptable ?

2. Turn in both and recommend the contractor's amount be paid ?

3. Call the insured & contractor and say you can only recommend your estimate amount as its more accurate ?

4. Tell the insured who is an officer of the insurance company that he left some $ on the table.

5. Tell the insured to send $1,000.00 back to the claim department as you get paid by the amount of the loss and it make a differance to YOU.