| Author |
 Topic  |
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
 Posted - 01/24/2004 : 09:21:22
|
Clayton recently posted a link to this website http://www.contractorcity.com.
I thought I would browse over to their discussion forum to take a look. Boy was I disappointed. There were less than 100 different discussion threads to choose from and 7 of them have had posts in 2004. How sad.
I am glad to participate in our CADO community... where people actually respond to each other and there is robust discussion. Clayton wondered aloud why contractors venture to into our clubhouse when they have their own... well, now I know. Their club house is empty.
Jennifer |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2004 : 10:14:40
|
Yes Hurricane, I suppose that is true, as to why they wander over to our Junglegym.
Perhaps they suffer from a much worse endemic malaise among their 4,800 registered users, than our own 4,000; noting their apparent lack of participation.
It is refreshing to see that 12% of our 'members' have now participated in posting to threads; a significant increase from the 7 - 8% a year or so ago. |
 |
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2004 : 11:51:21
|
-Jennifer / CCarr
J--"There were less than 100 different discussion threads to choose from and 7 of them have had posts in 2004. How sad."
CC--"Perhaps they (contractors) suffer from a much worse endemic malaise among their 4,800 registered users, than our own 4,000; noting their apparent lack of participation".
Perhaps that particular clubhouse is "empty" because the the boy and girl members are out helping really sad people across the nation get their homes, businesses and lives back by playing "post incident" construction business persons.
We don't enjoy the luxury of "adjusting the loss"...and leaving...We anticipate and fulfill the reconstruction / restoration needed...we have the whole indemnity loss principle "pie" to deal with...
And that pie has a lot of pieces to dish out...
1. Figure out the loss / damage severity.
2. Plan out reconstruction / restoration processes.
3. Cost out the processes.
4. Work the *plan...to make "the incident" go away.
5. Be responsible for those processes and plan.
(Financially, craftsmanship wise, warranties).
6. Juggle the following fine print chaos attached to the "A-Z" *plan:
A. Kiss the spouse goodbye...
B. Juggle scope verification / contact with property owner...
C. Juggle scope verification / contact with adjuster[s]...
D. " supply chain needed...
E. " product availability...
F. " product unavailability...
G. " sub-trade pool...
H. " weather stuff...
I. " sub-trade delays...
J. " property owner availability...
K. " supply chain delays...
L. " speciality equipment availability...
M. " all communication delays...
N. " (rare) accidents...
O. " unseen damage...
P. " sub-trade management...
Q. " office supervision...
R. " field supervision...
S. " city & state inspections...
T. " cash flow...
U. " accountant contact...
V. " banking meetings...
W. " legal meetings...
X. " etc., etc. x's a given single or multiple number of projects...
Y . " reply to an occasional post...
Z. " kiss the spouse good-night...
Hmmm...Perhaps those clubhouse members are tired...and getting some rest...so as to be able to do it all again tomorrow...
So...you two have extra snide remark time available because...[?]
rogerpoe@acnet.net |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2004 : 12:15:01
|
Before we drag out Ol'Dragons Breath and lit it up, we should decide which of the facets of Recon Man need roasting first.
Is it the incessant and typical contractors whining?
Is it the poking his nose in where it does not belong?
Is it the baiting of our sensebilities?
Is it the convoluted and excessive posts that go around the bush without getting to the root of the matter?
I've forgotten whose turn it is to use Ol' Dragons Breath. So, it's first come, first served. |
|
|
|
Admin
547 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2004 : 12:19:32
|
| Roger I do not see their remarks as snide. You have the time to post. The question was why not post on that site so that you can get the feedback your looking from your peers. Coming here to insult the community will not get you very far. |
Roy Cupps -
CatAdjuster.org :: Contact\Feedback :: Adjuster Roster :: Current Forum |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2004 : 17:56:40
|
To Recon Man... if you and your trade are so busy helping customers, how do you find the time to write mini disertations on all of the problems with our profession? Clearly you have a double stand and can't see reality while you sit up on your horse. Roy is right, insulting us will not get you what you want... unless you want to be reviled and ignored.
Jennifer |
Edited by - fivedaily on 01/24/2004 17:58:04 |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2004 : 18:03:53
|
Insulting anyone was not intended on our part. Frank indignation was being expressed.
But hey...if we are gonna' keep score...
Shaded jabs at other professionals and their professions sites, accusations of contractor whining, repeated 'nose poking' comments, "convoluted and excessive posts" comments...
Oh...We get now...we can be slighted and we just have to watch...hmmm...Well...that doesn't seem fair...[B)]
Perhaps we all involved have strayed from common courtesy due the
other[s]. Let's start over...[:X]
We have watch this site, and others, with interest and with the intent to address insurers "claim severity control" schema's that are affecting policyholders, contractors and adjusters.
For complex economic and societal reasons, we do not feel this trend represents a pendulum blade swing, but the polishing and honing of a guilletine.
That said, we have received positive e-mail responses to our "convoluted and excessive" posts, [that's a friendly jab at ya' Ghostbuster...] and, some excellent and insightful telephone conversations.
We are asking for a concerted and confidential knowledge and experience pooling effort to be implemented to counter present indemnity processing methodologies.
Frank reasoning on how to dismantle the guilletine, with said reasoning intended to inform the policyholding public, not "Treason", is being suggested here. A well informed public doubles as as jury...when properly educated.
Homeowners deserve to know how to define, and receive, fair and reasonable settlements their premium supports. Can three day "estimating" trainees provide seasoned good faith expertise?
Are handymen seasoned specialty construction professionals?
If not...why not?
IF interested in ...call us, e-mail us, fax us, reply to this post...Let's not wring our hands, let's shake hands...
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2004 : 20:44:54
|
You know, I must be missing something here.
In all the years I have been doing this, I do not recall one single instance where a(ny) insurance carrier failed to pay fully and completely for all covered portions of a covered loss.
Mind you, there are losses wherein a portion of the loss may not be indemnified either by insurance contract exclusions or election of the insured for a greater layer of risk retention. Save that proportional loss, I have yet to see or hear of a covered loss wherein an insurance carrier failed to pay sufficiently to comply with indemnity provisions of a policy, subject to policy limits and exclusions.
Forgetting the rhetoric of overhead and profit, the bottom line that each insured is only interested in is whether the insurance company is going to pay enough to repair or replace their damaged property. Most insureds do not know with any degree of certainty what their insurance policy says nor what it means, nor will they ever care UNTIL they suffer a loss personally. And then their only questions and concerns are whether their loss is covered and for how much (relative to how much they may be required to pay out of pocket).
Now I wonder whether you understand the concept of indemnity at all. If so, then we should be able to agree that the carrier's only responsibility is to pay repair or replacement cost less depreciation (if true ACV) and less deductible.
How many times in your company billing for an insurance repair, replacement or reconstruction job do your require your customer to make a check payable to your general contracting company for that required deductible? Do you ever "waive" the deductible in your contract agreement with your customer (and our insured)?
We all should remember that it is in fact the responsibility of the insured to 'assert' their loss, and this requirement is one of the reasons behind the Proof of Loss statement. Historically, insurance companies and carriers would ask if not require an insured to assert the quantification and qualification of their loss by providing to the carrier three (3) repair estimates from contractors of the insured's choosing. Whether O & P was attached or not within any of these estimates was of no concern to either the insured or the insurer, with both only concerned with a comparison of estimates based on the lowest bid. There is nothing either wrong or illegal with this approach of requiring an insured to furnish 3 estimates by an adjuster and carrier. In fact such approach helps all insureds by holding down premium rates and helps the contracting industry by driving out the weak, incompetent and unprofessional contractors.
Now before you attack a low bidding process with any suggestion that it isn't fair, or doesn't work, or invites shoddy work, remember that it is more the rule rather than the exception that most custom buyers utilize this same process when shopping to build a new home. And schools, hospitals, WalMart's, shopping centers, apartment complexes, skyscrapers, and just about any kind of building project you can imagine or name is more often than not built on the basis of lowest bidder. Whatever O & P, if any, is included within the low bid is of no interest or concern to the buyer of such services, regardless of whether the buyer is an insurer or an insuring public.
Can you really imagine Donald Trump (who knows a little bit about both real estate and construction) insisting on paying O & P or caring what rate of O & P is included within a low bid on his next big skyscraper rather than choosing from among a pool of bids?
Your business is no different than any other business in America in the sense that it is the strongest that survive. And the strongest are those who can survive in a new competitive global economy and shrinking profit environment by lowering costs through technological innovation and economies of scale.
All the Overhead and Profit in the world will not prop up nor insure survival for any business enterprise, be it contractor or insurer, in today's economy, that is not prepared to meet or exceed customer expectations and match or beat their competitors pricing.
|
Edited by - JimF on 01/25/2004 01:16:49 |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2004 : 10:13:10
|
Thanks Jim for your thorough post.
Recon Man... I made no "shaded jabs." I was pretty clear with my disappointment and the facts that led up to it.
You are barking up the wrong tree if you think this is the place to "address insurers "claim severity control" schema's that are affecting policyholders, contractors and adjusters".
The claims adjuster is so far removed from the underwriting process they would probably be of little use to your legal ways.
Of the people on this site who actually adjust claims... the insurer's schema to control claim severity is not high on our list of problems to address. Each 'real adjuster' is just striving, I hope, to make a fair estimate of damages for each and every insured. We use databases based on construction industry averages. We all know that O&P is considered individually based on the merit of any given claim. I doubt you will find the "silver bullet" you are looking for.
"We are asking for a concerted and confidential knowledge and experience pooling effort to be implemented to counter present indemnity processing methodologies. "
Again... claims is not involved in the initial underwriting process. You need to begin talking to agents and the sales departments if you have a beef. I am not sure I see the problem with "present indemnitiy processing methodologies." Acturaries have precise formulas they use that I will never pretend to understand. They sciene of the actuary is beyond even the above average adjuster or contractor.
It seems your problem really is with the actuaries not the adjusters.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2004 : 10:45:30
|
| I now while this feels like a familiar conversation. It reminds me of trial lawyers trying to explain why multi million $ settlements (of which the keep up to 50%) are good for industry and the public. |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2004 : 13:31:11
|
Jim ---Nice post-----
RECON MAN---suggest that you back stroke to the "Roofing Forum" and then go to "Rubber roofing/Flat Roof''....Ithink you need to police your own---like the ROOFER That did a job on...I mean for Jenny........enough said.... |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2004 : 23:41:02
|
-JIMF
"In all the years I have been doing this, I do not recall one single instance where a(ny) insurance carrier failed to pay fully and completely for all covered portions of a covered loss."
Move to Texas, open a G.C. business...the "instances" will start rolling in. Especially in CAT situations.
"I have yet to see or hear of a covered loss wherein an insurance carrier failed to pay sufficiently to comply with indemnity provisions of a policy, subject to policy limits and exclusions."
Well...if paying what is owed after being caught underpaying still counts as living up to policy [promise] provisions...then...OK.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/press_releases/20020920.htm
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/fs/fs000542.php3
http://www.pistotniklaw.com/insurance.html
Etc., etc...
"And the strongest are those who can survive in a new competitive global economy and shrinking profit environment by lowering costs through technological innovation and economies of scale."
Boy...our "economy of scale" would sure be thankful if it could anticipate that increased WC, etc. costs, and insurer lowballing schemes, were gonna bushwack businesses...
"Can you really imagine Donald Trump (who knows a little bit about both real estate and construction) insisting on paying O & P or caring what rate of O & P is included within a low bid on his next big skyscraper rather than choosing from among a pool of bids?"
I would imagine Mr. Trump, or his advisors, would be very interested in the ability of any trusted construction business investor to stay in business, before, during and after a construction project.
"Your business is no different than any other business in America in the sense that it is the strongest that survive".
If "strongest" = most corrupt...certain insurers qualify for survival.
"Whatever O & P, if any, is included within the low bid is of no interest or concern to the buyer of such services, regardless of whether the buyer is an insurer or an insuring public".
Hmmm...those lowball claim settlements we been seeing are starting to make sense... |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 07:07:04
|
Mr Con Man*, the insurance contract is a contract only between the insurance company and the insured. General contractors, whether stable or shaky, crooked or honest, are not party to the insurance contract. (*Yes, I did call you a Con Man, although not because you could con us, but because you are conning yourself through the naivety of your illogical arguments and the ignorance of your misinformation).
I stand by my comment: "In all the years I have been doing this, I do not recall one single instance where a(ny) insurance carrier failed to pay fully and completely for all covered portions of a covered loss."
Insurance companies have no obligation to pay unreasonable, improper, outrageous, and fraudulent amounts demanded by 'some' contractors.
When the insurance carrier and an insured can agree on the amount of damages, as measured in dollars, then there is satisfaction of the indemnity provision of the insurance contract (policy).
When an adjuster and insurance carrier encounter the insured seeking to 'profit' from a loss and refuses to deal reasonably with quantification of a loss, then the measure of complying with the indemnity provision is whether other contractors in a competitive market can and will do the repair/replacement work for the indemnity amounts tendered, and if not, then certainly, the indemnity payment offered would need to be increased.
And as we all know, there are just some people who will not deal in good faith in the claims process and seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the insurance companies (and indirectly at the expense of ALL policyholders who share in the burden of increasing premiums), and for those insureds, there are mechanisms for claims resolution including seeking relief through the policy appraisal provisions or equity through our judicial system.
As for the three links which you provided within your post, the first 2 deal with complaints against only one carrier, Allstate, from the Northridge Earthquake. The 3rd link deals with automobile accidents and bodily injury claims which really have nothing to do with catastrophe claims and adjusting.
Finally, I think if you will do even the most minimal research and review of the facts, you might find that insurance fraud is a very big problem in this country and is one of the prime factors driving premium increases. If you seek to know and tell the truth, you will find that not a small part of that corruption comes from incompetent, dishonest and greedy contractors within your own ranks. And my question to you is: what are you doing about that? Where is your concern for the general public's insurance premium increases caused by incompetent and fraudulent contractors?
|
Edited by - JimF on 01/26/2004 10:40:09 |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 09:10:34
|
Good solid hit there, Jim.
Clayton, it's your turn at the plate. Put one over the fence for us. |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 09:12:39
|
---JimF
You asked..."How many times in your company billing for an insurance repair, replacement or reconstruction job do your require your customer to make a check payable to your general contracting company for that required deductible? Do you ever "waive" the deductible in your contract agreement with your customer (and our insured)"?
Deductibles are not a separate check to be issued...
and are always accounted for. They are part of the whole investment. They are paid accordingly. |
|
|
|
goose
57 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 10:07:58
|
| I didn't realize repairing damage from a catastrophe was an "investment". But after seeing some of the contractor estimates for mold remediation work in Texas, I can see how a contractor might call it that. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Contractor City
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
