RE: The Mold Myth
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
NOTICE: We are no longer using this forum for discussions. Please follow the links to the new forums.
Catastrophe Central-The Adjuster's Forum : Community Center- Forums
New Site Registration : New Site Login
Login  | |
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/16/2006 12:06:17 AM
|
|
|
trader
Posts: 1203
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Houston, TX
Status: offline
|
Many hundreds or thousands of adjusters have been in the same world you have been in recent times. This is new to me. Could you share some of the names involved ?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/16/2006 8:15:46 AM
|
|
|
Catmandale
Posts: 48
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Bakersfield, CA
Status: offline
|
Trader,
I'm with you.
Never heard of that 100 sf guideline, except for as it relates to asbestos abatement in California.
In California, contractors can pull out asbestos without having the asbestos certification if the area is less than 100 sf. I have a link to the open book test for California Asbestos certification. See page 19.
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/forms/AsbOpenBook.pdf
Using the previously mentioned guideline on mold claims is asking for trouble. Who is measuring "contaminated" and "concentrated" for them?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/16/2006 10:06:28 AM
|
|
|
Big Bob
Posts: 187
Joined: 10/4/2005
Status: offline
|
Trader, I am on your side of the fence on this question.
For years mold like smoke... deal with it.. and don't make it into a big deal.
It looks like a big part of the future "mold problem" for contractors ( and their liability carriers) is OSHA and Workers Comp.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/16/2006 1:57:46 PM
|
|
|
margar
Posts: 241
Joined: 3/18/2006
Home base: Benton, KY
Status: offline
|
Gentlemen
I am not taking sides with anyone on this subject . I am just stating past experiences. I will try to clarify the 100 sq. ft area had to be where the mold was consistent in that area. For example if you were inspecting a 15 x 20 room and there was areas less than 100sq. ft on each wall you would pay to R&R the affected areas. However if you had an area that the mold was continous and the area exceeded the 100sq. ft you would turn it over to a analytical firm of the carriers preffered vendor list for inspection.
I for one happen to agree with this. If I have an area of mold growing in my home and it is over 100 sq . ft and continous. I would very much prefer someone with the biological expertise or proper testing equipment to let me know exactly what I am dealing with.
As far as names Trader " Not a chance" when I arrive at a new storm site and working for a new Carrier I want to know just one thing. The guidelines - If they will lay out the rules I will play by them. I don,t write the policies I merely interpret and apply them to the best of my ability.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/16/2006 3:44:37 PM
|
|
|
trader
Posts: 1203
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Houston, TX
Status: offline
|
hmm we need to get the same HO-3 policy or someone to arbitrate this thread. One adjuster says if its 100 sf and can be seen in a room that was damaged by wind storm you are instructed to call in a CIH and the policy will pay for testing to see what type of mold you are breathing.
The other adjuster says the mold must be hidden from sight and must be caused by a plumbing leak, and the policy will not pay for testing or cost to comply with any ordinance. Windstorm damage resulting in wet building material is a violation of a law???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/16/2006 5:50:32 PM
|
|
|
margar
Posts: 241
Joined: 3/18/2006
Home base: Benton, KY
Status: offline
|
This adjuster is saying this the carrier for whom I was working for called a mandantory meeting . This meeting took place approx. 2 weeks into the storm at that meeting we were instructed by the powers that be that this was the criteria we were to follow. Once again I did not set the standard I simply adhered to the guidelines. What I did state was I personally thought it was a good idea as far as health and welfare for the insured.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/17/2006 8:40:16 PM
|
|
|
mountainman
Posts: 5
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline
|
On the C.L.U.E. issue, it does not only apply to water or mold claims. It is my understanding that any claim submitted will be logged and shared with other companies. I have seen water claims, wind claims, auto claims, etc., listed via C.L.U.E.
I personally had my fiancee go to get one of my vehicles registered while I was off at work. She had pulled into the parking lot, accidently bumped that concrete base around a light pole and that little denting cost about $1,600. She said she wanted to report it under her insurance policy and did do. Her ins co called me to verify the damage and said I MUST notify my company just to let them know about the accident even though they were not to get involved. Otherwise, they could not come inspect. Like an idiot, I did, and told my ins co that it was a requirement I call. However, I am NOT making a claim under my policy so do NOT let it show. About a week later, and adjuster shows from MY company. I told them I was not filing a claim. The I/A got paid and I was sent a check from both her company AND from my company. I called my company and told them about this mistake. I was INFORMED that any time an insured calls in, even if to ask a question, the company MUST create a Claim Number and MUST report it to C.L.U.E.
Our industry has joined the ranks with Big Brother. We are being watched and monitored more than ever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/17/2006 8:57:48 PM
|
|
|
Wes
Posts: 622
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Deerfield Beach, FL
Status: offline
|
Didn't they used to call this a PILR or something like that?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/17/2006 11:34:50 PM
|
|
|
trader
Posts: 1203
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Houston, TX
Status: offline
|
PILR is still used on first party fire losses, but the requirements seem to take a back seat to CLUE, as an IA would never close a fire claim without a PILR report many moon ago. It seems the carriers do the reporting now.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/18/2006 7:24:45 AM
|
|
|
jlombardo
Posts: 340
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: clearwater, fl
Status: offline
|
Trader,
Margar is referring to the old New York Mold Guidelines that were established years ago....the 100 SF rule was the trigger point for a full blown mold testing/protocol and remediation......
This varies from company to company and depends on the observed mold and the insureds attitude....... we address the mold issue on a case by case basis and if the insured wants to get an IH involved, then we encourage him to do so ....we always tell the insured up front what coverage he has and that we will follow his lead........if the loss is covered, then we will pay the typical mold testing, protocol, remediation, etc as stipulated by the policy and attached endorsements.......
As far as the mold having to be "hidden within the walls, floors or ceilings" this is an additional peril in surd against in the ISO CIT 17 10 05 and the ISO CIT 2310 05 which is endorsed onto the HO and/or DP policies.......
The addition of this added peril insured against can broaden the water damage/mold coverage on risk with the DP-2 and DP-3 policies and limit the coverage on the HO policies.......however, each endorsement refers the entire cost of handling mold, dry rot, wet rot, bacterial contamination to the endorsement limit ---usually 10,000.00 per covered occurrence and 50,000 per policy period.......this includes the costs of testing/protocol creation/remediation AND ALE.....
If you would like me to e-mail you a copy of the above mentioned endorsements, please send me a personal e-mail and I will be happy to do so......
Hope this helps...both adjusters were correct depending on what policy the risk is insured under and what endorsements have been attached to said policy......
From a carrier's standpoint and from an E&O standpoint, margar has the right idea......as an IA, as long as a vendor or carrier is not requesting that you do something illegal, immoral or unethical, then they set the rules...it is their court and their customers.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/18/2006 11:38:58 AM
|
|
|
trader
Posts: 1203
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Houston, TX
Status: offline
|
I agree with your last paragraph 100 % Joe. Texas does not have the HO-3 form and I was probably putting to much Texas coverage into the National iso HO-3 form. Thanks for the endorsments. Check my profile for the email.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/18/2006 3:21:00 PM
|
|
|
mountainman
Posts: 5
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Where can I get a copy of ISO Forms. Used to get policy forms from Hart Graphics, but they sold out. New company said they don't sell to I/A's, just companies. Would have to purchase all states at cost of thousands of dollars. Said they only sell in packets of hundreds. Told me we now have to obtain from carriers.
Any help here?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/18/2006 3:32:01 PM
|
|
|
trader
Posts: 1203
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Houston, TX
Status: offline
|
This is my apology to all the pro- molders. Joe has sent me the Florida endorsements that makes all the Homeowners Forms and the DP1,2 and 3 Forms cover "Fungi," Wet or Dry Rot. Yeast or Bacteria up to $10,000. The loss has to be in the policy period, due diligence exercised. Therefore, this post is still labeled properly. The water remediation contractors can not get rich on one gutted house as all testing, remediation and ALE is within the limit of $10,000.
Additionaly, this seems to be another profit center for the pro adjusters to purchase a mold sniffing dog. (satire)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/18/2006 6:30:04 PM
|
|
|
Wes
Posts: 622
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Deerfield Beach, FL
Status: offline
|
trader, also be aware if you handle any claims in Florida this year that the $10,000.00 limit is per occurrence/claim. Not per policy period of time. Most of the carriers do have an aggregate limit of I believe $40,000.00 per policy period. Is this the same with the carriers you handle jlombardo?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/18/2006 9:51:53 PM
|
|
|
jlombardo
Posts: 340
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: clearwater, fl
Status: offline
|
Wes,
I am staff and our mold/wet rot//dry rot/bacterial endorsements usually carry a $10,000.00 limit per occurrence with a max of $50,000 per policy period.
I think most of the carriers use the $10,000 base and then higher limits can be chosen from there by endorsement.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/18/2006 9:55:08 PM
|
|
|
jlombardo
Posts: 340
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: clearwater, fl
Status: offline
|
Mountainman..
Try the American association for CPCU/IIA in Exton, PA...
I believe that they sell all the ISO forms for around $40.00....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Mold Myth - 7/18/2006 10:01:40 PM
|
|
|
jlombardo
Posts: 340
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: clearwater, fl
Status: offline
|
Trader,
Nice to see an apology BUT, I do not see any need for an apology to anyone in this thread.......you are merely doing one of the things that a well seasoned adjuster does........"stirring the pot" to keep things moving!!!!!!
Albeit, you sometimes use a tad too much seasoning (but than again, you are from Texas where the Chili will smoke ya), as I think we all do from time to time, myself included, but without you things would be a lot more dull around here........
Regards,
Joe L.
|
|
|
|
!! You are viewing a post in the forum archive.
NOTICE: We are no longer using this forum for discussions. Please follow the links to the new forums.
Catastrophe Central-The Adjuster's Forum : Community Center- Forums
New Site Registration : New Site Login
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
User Agreement | Privacy Statement| Contact |Copyright 1995 - 2006 CatAdjuster.org. All rights reserved.
0.361
|
Printable Version
