| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
 Posted - 12/18/2003 : 09:30:50
|
From a thread or two, the emerging practice of a carrier establishing handling parameters limited to estimating damage only; has surfaced.
In the "Mentor needed bad" thread, within the "Getting Started" forum; I rambled off topic, honestly wondering how a person new to claims can just start doing it.
Then, in the "File reviews, .... ~ A Process" thread, within this "General Discussion" forum, I became aware of the noted practice; and it seems to be the answer to my question.
Obviously, my thoughts in the "mentor" thread are redundant, in the face of this handling practice.
Obviously, an adjuster is not required to estimate damages, and if the "insurance" element of the claim handling is eliminated; there will no longer be a need for experienced adjusters - whether that absent need is of those that exist today, or those coming behind new to this 'career'.
I can not come to terms with the noted practice, which was news to me.
If a carrier is mandating that the damage handler strictly limit their involvement to the estimate of damages, I think they best suggest or mandate as well that the handler never use the term "adjuster". The term "adjuster" implies many things, and for a damage handler to say or infer that they are an "adjuster" within the noted parameters; is akin to a Dental Hygenist saying that they are a Dentist, or a 'boy' saying he is a 'man'.
However, it has hit me in the face, why so many tar pots and the like are making the seemingly easy walk across the 'street'; to overnight become what they think is an "adjuster".
I don't know the depth of this practice, or how long it has been emerging, but if it is an accelerating trend; there is no need for a damage handler to learn or know the insurance claims processes or anything about policies. Truly, I find this very unsettling.
On a personal note, of the "3C's", my greatest interest in the process was always with 'cause' (hence my long time attachment to "regular" claims), followed as a very close second by 'coverage'. To me, the 'cost', was just the culmination, the required end process, a technical exercise; which followed cause and coverage.
This practice will have an immediate and long term negative effect on the overall insurance industry, resulting in a great degradation of the human resource pool that the industry has historically relied upon.
I feel foolish now, for all my previous pounding and ramblings on the need for education, training and insurance claims "adjustment process" experience. Clearly, a carrier providing handling parameters as mentioned at the start of this thread, does not need an "adjuster"; whether that person be a trained adjuster or not.
This is all I have done, all my working life, and although I am in the twilight of that journey, I am so dismayed to see this type of degradation of what was once a profession; now falling further to the mere edge of still being called a trade. |
|
|
MRichardson1952
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 10:10:44
|
Mr. Carr,
I agree with your thoughts. My feeling is that the educated skilled adjuster is needed on every claim that we've talked about. What has been happening is that it takes a skilled adjuster to know what is and what isn't covered, etc. The company's that are asking for them to "make no commitment" in the field are just exercising their right to make final decisions and inform their own policyholders of the results.
I see no major problem with that, in fact in some cases, it makes it easier for the field adjuster to close their file and move on to the next matter. |
 |
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 11:25:33
|
| More than roof climbing is involved. I worked property claims for two major carriers for 9 years before I saw my first "Hail Hit". Why? It never hailed in Houston. I did not feel like I was complete until I saw my first "Hit", and after one day I had it "learned". |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 11:28:43
|
So...the carrier says...Why should we have to pay some hairball independent, or for that matter, our own hairball employee to write an estimate when we can get some hairball contractor to do it for free???? Then we can cut the corners down to where we have a circle, then we can start cutting out the middle and make the profit picture look like a donut!
Yep, get rid of the adjuster, get rid of the agent, get rid of the claims manager and local offices, get rid of the company cars and clerical. Sell the product over the internet and 800 telephone numbers. Handle the claims from a single office in a state with low taxes, no unions, and cheap wages by low skilled trolls.
That's what America is all about in the wonderful world of Insurance! I know I'm excited and I hope you are too! |
|
|
|
Glowtom
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 15:00:32
|
| Does one who just estimates damages and reports back to office personnel need an adjuster's license? It would seem not to me. |
|
|
|
MRichardson1952
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 15:04:27
|
| In most all cases, no one needs a license to work a catastrophe. Even in those states that require licenses for the normal every day operations, they are generally wavied by the States Insurance Commission when a storm occurrs. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 15:32:21
|
Good point Tom. I don't want to get off topic with this licence issue, but keeping it relative to the duties of a damage handler / estimator; why would an adjuster's licence be required?
I note Mark's comments, but in Florida for example, I believe a licence is required (resident or nonresident) to "adjust" claims. But if the engagement was limited to being a damage handler / estimator, notwithstanding what a vendor or carrier may say on the subject; it would be interesting to hear what the Florida DOI would have to say regarding any requirement for a licence to those whose handling parameters are limited to estimating damage only. |
|
|
|
newtonclaims
5 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 15:43:00
|
You may want to look into Allstates PTC program and how it shuts out
the need for an adjuster in the field. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 15:47:00
|
| What is the PTC program Tim? I'd be interested in hearing what you know of it, and how it relates, as per your comment. |
|
|
|
newtonclaims
5 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 15:58:15
|
The program is a contractor program used by Allstate, the losses are directed to a approved PTC contractor. This is done by internet and also
followup phone calls for emergencies. The contractor then contacts the insured within 24 hours and prepares a estimate along with loss photo's
and diagrams. Then a work authorization is assigned the claim is assigned to a inside Allstate adjuster. All info is sent to Allstate by internet. NO IA. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 16:03:43
|
| Okay, a typical preferred contractor program; doing seemingly exactly what a damage handler / estimator would do relative to this thread. I am not aware of any licencing requirements for contractors to provide estimates and pictures, therefore should conclude that a "cat person" would similarily not require a licence when the terms of the engagement are only as a damage handler / estimator. Like wise, whatever would be the need for this "cat person", acting solely as a damage handler / estimator, to be certified by the carrier? |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 17:18:14
|
Oh, I beg your pardon. I have made a mistake.
That central phone office will not be located in a 'state' in the U.S. It will be located in a foreign country where the local citizenry can barely speak a heavily accented form of English and recite canned responses from the prompt sheets.
India...Liberia...the Philippines, whoever gives the lowest bid with the least mordida to the reigning dictator and his inlaws. Maybe even China with their slave labor, there's another idea worth looking into. |
|
|
|
Brooks Todd
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 19:10:52
|
I just recieved my adjusters liscence, from The Great State of Texas. I have 22 years in construction (framing, roofing, sales & concrete). I am an excellent estimator, and can build anything from a dawg house to a church. I am having a hard time finding a job in the adjusting field. I know what my angle is now. Imagine having an adjusters liscence, and being a contractor. I am calling Allstate tommorow. You have to change with the times.
Brooks |
|
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 23:06:22
|
Brooks,
I would not advise calling Allstate if you wish to keep your integrity intact. After almost 7 years with them and having held a variety of positions, including the sole Quality Evaluator for the entire southern half of Texas, I finally became fed up with their approach to requiring every adjuster to knowingly underpay every claim and left them this past July. The head of Allstate in Texas - Gary Briggs - had the nerve to stand up in front of an agent's meeting last spring and say (QUOTE) "I love the new HOA+ policy! It doesn't cover anything and WE STILL GET TO KEEP THEIR MONEY!"
I used to tell people whose claim I was handling that "the good hands of Allstate were right here" as I held my hands out for them. I could no longer do that in good faith and look myself in the mirror so I left. One of these days the Texas DOI is going to catch up with their property handling practices and then it will all hit the fan!
Good luck with anyone else! |
Kevin Hromas |
|
|
|
C Bond
32 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 23:27:26
|
Good for you Brooks. Good Luck I would think that an indivigual that has sucessfully functioned on both sides of the claim process would be valuable commodity to the insurance industry. Thats where I've put my money.
Mr. Carr,
In your many post to this site you have promoted, with the utmost grace and penmanship, the ideal of professionalism. It is obvious to the rest of us that you take great pride in calling yourself an adjuster and that any event that may indanger this level of distinction is inherently wrong and should be addressed. I Agree.
Because I know you hold dear the integrity of the profession, comments in your initial post confused me.
"I feel foolish now, for all my previous pounding and ramblings on the need for education, training and insurance claims "adjustment process" experience. Clearly, a carrier providing handling parameters as mentioned at the start of this thread, does not need an "adjuster"; whether that person be a trained adjuster or not."
What good does an estimate of damage do if the loss is not covered. Knowledge of coverage, interpersonal skills, AND estimating have to go hand in hand, in order for the adjustment process to be of value to the carrier.
The life blood of any profession is education. The more skilled it's members the more valuable they are. Without proper knowledge, training and experience we are all worthless regardless of our position. Sometimes the professional "body" can benefit from a transfusion of new blood.
Also new blood needs time to mix with the old and adapt to the environment.
From what I've gathered from this site the profession of adjusting is in a state of change that may very well be the death of those unable to adapt. Adaptation is almost always more successful for those indiviguals that do not yet have a hard&fast set of rules that says, "the way things aut to be." As a man that dearly loves this profession, I would think that you would welcome qualified new-comers with open arms and provide as much guildence as possible. Your experience is an invaluable teaching tool that could be used to strenghten the ranks rather than being used as a measuring stick against potentially good adjusters coming up.
The best way to garantee the survival of the adjuster as we know it is to teach as many as you can, the right way. Let's face it Clayton none of us can do it forever.
|
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2003 : 11:42:10
|
CB, sorry I don't know your first name. First though, thank you for your stimulating post. Second, thanks for your kind words in that post, while they are a gratifying signal that my message via my commentary is getting through, I am always leary and uneasy receiving such comments; only because of the level of expectation it creates in me to try and maintain that.
Yes, I still promote the ideal of professionalism. I started in this business as a teenager, having to wear a suit and tie everyday for the first 18 years, changing into work boots and pulling on coveralls at a loss site for a fire or messy water damage. I was surrounded during these formative years by people who loved their claims adjusting careers, and had been at it for 20, 30 or more years. While I was being weaned, travelling with some of these claim vets, I could see and feel the respect they had from policyholders. Respect, from anyone, then and now; can only be earned. Professionalism was a big part of the culture and learning environment that I grasped early in my career. We were measured as adjusters as much on "how" we did the job professionally, as we were on the technical merits of the job. That - professionalism - is something that has generally left the claims adjusting profession; in that it is not a key component of "the function" any longer. New buzz words are around in the current work culture and customer service environment, and I do see signals from various carriers that professionalism is being re-identified and quantified.
Up until about the mid 80's, regardless of what title along the way to that point, I did have great pride in telling anyone that I was an adjuster. Honestly, I thought I had been a very lucky person to have stumbled into that career. I loved to tell people how interesting the profession was, and how it was a people centric profession; and that no two claims or two people were ever the same, and the great challenges that provided that made for such interesting days. That has changed so much in the last 18 years. Yes, there is still a small segment of adjusting that still applies to that. But, by and large, it has become an insensitive and inpersonal "processing machine", for at least 60 to 70% of the claims volume per year. That is what finally made me leave the carrier ranks in 1986. I took great pride in providing a claims department that had empathy for people and that understood the trauma of loss. A claims department that was trained, continued to be trained and that enjoyed the ongoing journey of learning about people, policies and technical matters. I sold the claims department to the carrier's agents as a value added benefit to their doing business with that carrier. I guaranteed service, integrity, communication, empathy and professionalism. It worked, it was a wonderful work environment; again, those expectations once recognized were an uneasy pressure to maintain. Therefore, when the early concepts of call centers were introduced from the Ivory Tower, and the accompanying mandate on how and what type of claims person would comply with those mandates, etc; I was embarassed to face the agents that I had established relationships with. An "adjuster" was becoming a very diluted version of the picture I had painted. The "adjustment function" was for a large volume of the claims, becoming a "processing function". Change is change, and I learned long ago that it is the one constant we can expect to occur in our lives. But, the "adjuster" pride and respect that I saw walking into this career and that I tried to live up to, was being eroded in the carrier venue; so I sought to maintain that outside the carrier ranks.
Yes, if as per the opening of this thread, a person is called upon to function in the claims industry, within the sole parameters of estimating damage, there then is little need for insurance claims education and training; hence I feel foolish for my previous ramblings in that regard. I recognize that this does not comprise the full compliment of the claims population, be it the people in claims or the volume of claims. However, I do kick myself for not recognizing earlier, why so many people - as measured by this website - were wanting to jump into the cat claims ranks with no previous claims experience or training, and why so many - as measured by the silent majority - seemed to have no interest in educational topics presented or offered on this website; or so few had any expressed interest in establishing professional standards. It seems obvious now - why would yesterday's tar pots and the like, have any interest in investing time for any of that, when it was not necessary for them to attain and complete a volume of work that was limited to estimating damage? I am as angry at myself for not realizing those reasons, as I am very dismayed at the industry for providing this degraded venue for work.
Yes, not all claims assigned have those limiting parameters. And, to those people still wanting to "adjust" claims, education and training are still a paramount foundation for success.
I hope these comments, or any before, have not in any way been a signal that I do not welcome qualified new-comers to this industry and this specific niche in it. I do welcome, and have communicated with new-comers that are qualified and that want to pursue the adjustment of claims as a career.
Finally CB, I know only too well, not only the extent of my imperfections and limitations, making myself my own worst critic; but also the vagaries of longevity. Hopefully, as I slide too quick down that twilight pole, I can still offer thoughts and comments to those who want to enjoy and pursue a career as an adjuster. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"Adjuster", or just a handler / estimator?
Forum Locked
