| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
 Posted - 01/26/2004 : 11:00:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Reconstruction Man
---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.
Oh really?
Now I think finally we may be on to something worthy of bringing to the attention of the Texas Insurance Commissioner's Office.
Please explain to me exactly how your general contracting company "always accounts" for payment of the insured's deductible?
Who pays the deductible "accordingly" when an insured hires your company for a repair, replacement or reconstruction of a covered insurance loss?
I was already aware of your ignorance regarding the insurance and claims process, but you have now taken your ignorance to record new heights!
Please, please, please explain and dig yourself out of the hole you have dug yourself into if you can. If not, what you have described is a classic case of insurance fraud on both the part of your customers (and our insureds) as well as your own role in such fraud.
Quite frankly, it just doesn't get any better than this. Your comments are beyond belief.
We wait to hear.
|
 |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 11:16:51
|
Ghost, I am reluctant to enter this and several other threads. In doing so it would likely appear that I was a pinch hitter for Roger Recon, which would not be my intent; but worse, I would once again set myself up for the barrage of condescending retort that always seems to follow when the chosen path of opinion is at odds. This thread is a fine example of that.
However, this is somewhat of a vague thread, starting out as a simple comparison of playgrounds, turning to judgements related to participation or truancy in the respective sandboxes. Then, it takes its final turn down its current delta type path regarding carrier's ability or willingness (dependent on view) to consistently pay the full measure of what is due following a loss.
There is considerable banter in other CADO threads over the past few years, that carry quite a bit of antidotal evidence presented by adjusters, who have posted their concerns related to carriers not paying the full measure of covered losses.
Further, a large portion of insurance related litigation (past, present and undoubtedly the future) deals with the very issue at odds here - insureds looking to the courts for indemnity from their carrier where they feel they have not been properly or adequately compensated. And, that pursuit of indemnity goes on whether the issue follows an argument related to coverage or simply is a battle over quantum.
To assert otherwise, so strongly, and in an unnecessary manner as noted in the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the 1/26 @ 07.07 post; I feel simply deflects the issue.
But, this thread is not unlike many others in the past, relative to Fight Night at the Great CADO Forum. We have seen many bouts and rounds relative to "Handler vs Adjuster", "Roofer vs Adjuster", and now this is just a change of pace with "Contractor vs Adjuster".
My scorecard for the various main events show that the Adjuster won by default against the 'Handler', as no real challenge was mounted from that corner. The Adjuster won by a close decision against the 'Roofer', we will all remember Lennie the Roofer as a strong contender and eventual audience favorite. The current event, "Contractor vs Adjuster", is unsettled yet and is taking place in several rings within CADO. I don't doubt that the Adjuster will prevail in the end, for several reasons. The Adjuster has a decidedly 'hometown bias', and the Contractor regardless of effort can not score sufficiently in this ring, due to our inability to affect the change that he keeps pounding on so valiantly. |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 11:29:29
|
--JimF
Poor disllusional us.
Your input seems to be based, partially, on total cognitive insulation from the settlement principle facts that the third link is referring to, and which facts are being carried over into "fair and reasonable" [re]construction settlement "estimates".
Perhaps the [TDI public record document] estimating philosophy that Allstate, TWIA [Texas Windstorm Insurance Association] and other "fair and reasonable" construction estimating entities embrace needs to be scanned and displayed here. Then with those facts / explanations on everyones desk...we can have more meaningful conversations that center around certain insurers/adjusters estimating "practices"...and all that those practices prove and promote.
You stated--"In all the years I have been doing this, I do not recall one single instance where any insurance carrier failed to pay fully and completely for all covered portions of a covered loss."
Well, after carefully studing the TDI document you shouldn't be able to say that anymore...thousands of estimates have been presented in the manner the TDI document explains...and it also will help ones to understand our previous [rambling] posts that reflect...how did you put it?...our "illogical arguments and the ignorance of your misinformation"...
Connect the dots of our postings...then come back and talk...as a neighborly gesture we'll even sharpen your crayon for you.
As a personal note to those that have called and e-mail us...thank you...we are aware of your concerns and anticipate a correction of claim estimating / settlement issues you are struggling with. Imagine how frustrated policyholdin' people are in not knowing why what is going on...is going on. We see their frustration here, and across the nation, everyday. 956-969-4454 |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 11:59:06
|
Clayton, could you please tell me where Recon Man is going with this? The profusion of semantics has left me in a dither.
As an aside, your last post was well done. I had kinda thought you and Jim might do the old Mantle-Maris thing. Instead you went the Howard Cosell path. Brilliant! |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 12:07:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Reconstruction Man
---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.
Con Man, you're still avoiding the topic.
Please explain where and when the deductible is paid and by whom?
You say they are paid "accordingly" so please tell us where and by whom.
I agree that the deductible needs to be accounted for and here's your chance to provide us with the method by which your general contracting company handles that accounting. |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 12:11:30
|
--JimF
Wow...you caught us...
Seriously though...you stated "Please explain to me exactly how your general contracting company "always accounts" for payment of the insured's deductible?
Whatever a clients deductible is of no concern to us. We have even had to "lose" potential clients as they slyly suggest "covering" their deductible for them in our estimates, or claiming maintenance issues are "sudden and accidental issues". Their "deductible" is just a piece of the whole bill they are responsible for...and owe us for. Our clients responsiblity to pay their deductible value coupled with insurance reserve funds = our reconstruction bill being paid.
"Who pays the deductible "accordingly" when an insured hires your company for a repair, replacement or reconstruction of a covered insurance loss"?
Again, our clients pay their "deductible"...the portion of the repair estimate / agreement value they are responsible for...to us. Care for some invoices to present TDI or the AG office?
"I was already aware of your ignorance regarding the insurance and claims process, but you have now taken your ignorance to record new heights"!
Well...Ok...Sorry about that...Oh...and your frenzied mob buds went down the street and to the left... |
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 12:11:34
|
These differences of opinion, all may lead to one of the mandatory requirements of the policy, prior to suit. APPRAISAL.
This little used and much less understood provision, of the policy, will be invoked in a far greater manner than it has previously.
While each state has their particular provisions with respect to the process, the basic tenant of the provision remains.
It is designed as a swift and alternate resolution to a contested amount of a claim.
While either party may invoke this provision, the requirement of the parties to make " an honest attempt to resolve the claim, prior to requesting appraisal" may preclude the implementation thereof.
In some states the matter MUST be resolved within 30 days, while there are many states with no limitations, except that it must be swift.
The CADO convention of 2000 provided the attendees with a broad outline of the process, and since that time there has been a significant increase in the use of this provision. Do not be surprised to se an increase of several hundred percent in the application and utilization of the appraisal process.
Functioning as an appraiser and umpire for several years has taught me many things, topmost among them is that there remains much to be learned.
Only an opinion.
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 12:24:17
|
---katadj
Again...excellent insights and "opinions".
Sadly we have watch the insurers damage appraisal process, whether conducted by a staff adjuster, or third party claim service, all too often [recently] becoming the settlement tool of choice. We feel incomplete field damage assessments and arm chair claim reviews create those settlement processes.
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 13:09:49
|
--goose
You stated "I didn't realize repairing damage from a catastrophe was an "investment".
Well, open a construction business, or any other business and the need for a financial return on the money being invested to keep it going becomes obvious. |
|
|
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 13:28:35
|
---katadj
Again...excellent insights and "opinions".
What was meant in the above reply is restated here...
Sadly we have watch the insurers damage assessment / claim settlement process, initiated by staff adjusters, or third party claim services, all too often [recently] creating the formal appraisal settlement process enviroment which doubles as a settlement tool of choice. We feel incomplete field damage assessments and arm chair claim reviews, in part, create those settlement processes.
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 14:02:10
|
I thought that some of you might be interested to read the following which is posted to a website entitled "AllstateInsuranceSucks.Com" by our friend Reconstruction Man (Roger Poe). It is the 3rd post from the top on the link enclosed.
*****************************************
9-28-2003 ATTENTION: Homeowner Policyholders / Consumer / TDI / Attorney General / Justice Department / Class Action Alert... Allstate Insurance Company is [presently] underpaying claims "en masse" in South Texas in a "sleight of hand" method that is absolutely underpaying 95+% of the homeowner claims in the Weslaco, Brownsville / Rio Grande Valley area affected by recent 2002/2003 hail, wind, rain storms.... Average underpayment---$1,200.00 per claim per our Allstate estimate files--- Allstate's [construction business] estimating practice of excluding roofing costs in their estimates sub-total underestimates / underpays the 10% overhead and 10% profit line costs, and ends up equaling 3% & 3% O&P paid...Clever, but illegal...Consumers, check your estimates sub-total Overhead and Profit line totals!!!... Allstate's explanation(s)..."We don't pay O&P in Texas", or, "The roofing contractor already has O&P factored in"...(1)False statement / (1)True statement...BUT...Roofing or other sub-trades O&P is NOT the General / Primary Contractors O&P...We apply O+P to the whole estimate's sub-total...Allstate knows this, and has just [fairly recently] started trying this [illegal] estimating methodology... Call (956)-969-4454 or e-mail us at rogerpoe@acnet.net for more information... See The Texas Department of Insurance' stand on such illegal claim settlement practice... http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/commish/bulletins/b-0045-8.html Also, TDI just punished Mid-Continent Insurance Co. for [in effect] the same 'creating false impressions' [deceptive business practice] Mid-Continent tried against 1,500 policyholders... http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/commish/news/nr07093a.html Allstate is welcomed to comment on why their [illegal] construction estimating methodology presented here to thousands of [mostly] unsuspecting homeowners is "appropriate and warranted", "fair and reasonable" "fair [construction] trade [estimating] practice" / claim settlement here, or anywhere... With all the "clever" corporate "accounting book cooking" being exposed, it appears it is now Allstate's turn to explain their justification for deceiving their customers, stockholders and governmental regulatory oversight entities... As a final word to Allstate, in spite of the suggestion from Allstate, we will not stop doing business with Allstate policyholders / our clients... As a General Construction service business, and neighbor, we will continue to stand up for our neighbors and ourselves regarding your shameless and unconscionable fakery to the public you are well known for here... You might rather want to reflect on the fact that much of your own customer base you are "creating false impressions" to are educated and thinking people, have all kinds of [common life, doctorate, legal, legislative, judicial, commercial business and etc.] experience...like you, except there are much, much more than 50,000 of us, and we do not depend on you for our living...the insurance industry depends on us for their living... We are also encouraging all Allstate Insurance Agents to make sure the [inferior] Actual Cash Value policies, that one Allstate agency in Brownsville Texas [recently] admitted makes up 50% of their book of business, rethink why other Allstate agents in Brownsville only have 2/3% ACV customers on their books... Full Replacement Cost policies make sense to even the tightest wallet or "dumbest customer" if explained properly, and if you really believe your customers / neighbors are needing to be in "good hands" indemnity wise...Especially in our environmentally volatile area... People before profits, and the profits will come, and stay... Break those business rules, and other stuff happens...
http://www.allstateinsurancesucks.com/View_Complaints_Jul_Aug_Sept_2003.htm |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 16:24:34
|
| At least we know he writes in the same style everywhere. Do I smell a class action being set up. |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 16:50:04
|
| Mr Contractor: I know about 3 very very large roofing contractors that travel the USA and will replace any roof that I write an estimate on, as well my fellow adjusters, plus the deductiable. Yes ACV policys and named peril do exist for a purpose. We will alert the above contractors if the hail is damaging hail. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 17:26:52
|
| Sounds to me like we have a agitator in our midst. I have no respect for these kinds of folk. If he was any good at being a contractor he would be too busy working at his business and not have the time to be an agitator for some slimeball lawyer looking for a class action suit. |
Edited by - AllCatMan on 01/27/2004 19:18:16 |
|
|
|
R.V. Winkle
USA
155 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 18:51:58
|
| GOOD JOB JIM!! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Contractor City
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
