Ending My Adjuster-Fighting Era

Well it's been a long haul, and fun. With the changing law as of last August, it no longer is legal to do what I've been doing for 34 years: representing the building owner against inept or dishonest adjusters.

I just finished the last one on Thursday, which fell into a gray area as I began that one before the law changed. I wouldn't call it a win because I didn't get everything I wanted, but it's more of a win than a loss because I was able to send it into appraisal but settled short of choosing an umpire...after the adjuster offered zero for 4 months. The owner is satisfied with what I got for him.

So, in 34 years doing this, I've done around 20 arbitration/appraisals, and lost 1. I lost it because I turned it over to a friend who didn't understand the importance of choosing the right umpire.

Of course I still have the right to defend my estimates, but the rest is now off limits.

It was a good run, but in the end the insurance companies won because they lobbied for laws that protect their profits.

Heck Tim, they've imported thousands of workers to protect their profits (RICO Law does not apply)

What do you want?

twill59 Said: Heck Tim, theyve imported thousands of workers to protect their profits (RICO Law does not apply)

What do you want?

Yeah, good point.

My Dad said "laws do not make people honest, laws turn more people into criminals. There are always people that are on the borderline of keeping it together. With the new law they either go bankrupt or break the law to pay the bills".

I never judge someone that is not following the law. They are just trying to feed their family. I am amazed that I can stay on the right side of the law.

Sometimes, (more often-than-not),

The problem with laws is that, although well-intended, (sometimes), they provide opportunity for unscrupulous types, that have no problem skirting the ultimately un/ill-enforced laws, as opposed to those that possess consciences that dictate otherwise.

So, we must pass more laws in attempts to untangle the mess we created by imposing the original laws. This is where the misconceptions arise.

Of course! - Then the unscrupulous types cry "no more laws", as the naïve, "less government" mentality is always opposed to any legislation(s). Sort of seals-the-deal.

Sometimes laws/types of legislation, should be done- away with, rather than "modified", so-to-speak.

I never judge someone that is not following the law. They are just trying to feed their family.

This isn't even close to being a "steal bread or starve" dilemma. The issue is "who will watch the watchers"?

Most people are forced to send their hard earned dollars to 3rd party money managers under the guise of "Insurance". The insurance company's profits are guaranteed by the regulators. So they aren't even much of a player in the "storm restoration racket". They are the facilitators.

Property owners don't have much of a clue. Roofers should know, but most of them have become nothing more than wheeling and dealing opportunistic storm chasers. Adjusters don't know much about roofing and are basically paper pushers.

Now you take an adjuster with a roofing business, or a roofer claiming he can influence an insurance claim, you have nothing but a couple of con artists in motion.

Ha! I have said for years it has become nothing but a disgraceful racket.

natty Said:

I never judge someone that is not following the law. They are just trying to feed their family.

Now you take an adjuster with a roofing business, or a roofer claiming he can influence an insurance claim, you have nothing but a couple of con artists in motion.

It is an absolutely false premise you work from. I just spent almost a year forcing an insurance company to pay $50,000. It was a money-loser for me, big time. But the insured had money coming and I was the one to get it for him.

After I sent him the "Appraisal Award" settlement sheet today, he had a 2 word response: Great job! Believe it or not, sometimes these deals are fought - not because it's profitable - but because it's the right thing to do.

The conclusion you have reached keeps you from finding the correct answer sometimes, because it is a solid fact that sometimes these things are fought on principle alone.

Roofguy Said:

It is an absolutely false premise you work from. I just spent almost a year forcing an insurance company to pay $50,000. It was a money-loser for me, big time.

You mean you did this and did not even get the roofing job?

I did not state a premise. The issue is objectivity and I believe that was the intent of the law. As I said, the profits of the insurance companies are guaranteed. This law does not protect their profits. And you did not "force" anything. You had no power. All you could do was act as an expert witness. The insurance company merely caved for whatever reason. (But you can always still act the part of Dudley Doright to influence the property owner if you choose-HA.)

The law did not change that which you could do. The thing the law changed was now you will have to argue your position through a public adjuster as always on behalf of the property owner if it gets that far. But chances are, you can argue your position to the insurance adjuster and they just might cave anyway.

Natty, The sentence you pulled out of context gives you a platform to call us roofing contractors who help our customers, con artists.

It takes a lot of time and money to obey the laws and work within the system.

I make money at the insurance company going rates. If you know how to fill out the paperwork, you will make money. Now before any of you tell me I am wrong listen. I am not the lowest price in my area, not even close. I do not cut corners to get a job. I am always busy. I never laid anyone off because of lack of work. My guys get a full benefit package;health insurance, retirement - matching 3%, paid holidays, paid vacations, life insurance...

There are things that are missed on the insurance adjusters sheet. If you miss the same things on your estimate, you will not get paid for them. If you waste your time trying to get paid for things they will not pay for, you are just wasting your time.

The insurance adjusters like working with us because we have a very good reputation. They know the job will be done right. Which gives them peace of mind. They wished we could do all the claims. But we can not because we do all the work in-house.

Keeping us from helping our customers will just mean that we lose the service part of our company that sets us apart from the other roofing contractors. Thus reducing the industry to an even lower standard of conduct.

Lefty Said: Natty, The sentence you pulled out of context gives you a platform to call us roofing contractors who help our customers, con artists.

No, I did not take anything out of context. Roofers con there clients-property owners- by implying they have some special power to get insurance companies to approve a claim or get "everything they deserve". These conartists advertise that the are "insurance specialists", or they have "adjusters on staff", or require property owners to sign "contingency contracts". Some even blatantly advertise "free roofs". They make the insurance companies out to be the bad guys and they are the knights in shining armor. Bah!

That is a big difference than working with the insurance adjuster to pay for the storm damage or pay a fair price. Here, you are acting as what you should be- an expert witness in regards to roofing.

North Texas is over run with con artists. I can't count how many property owners have told me that they went with a certain roofer or even got a roof at all because they thought they had to. Either the insurance adjuster told them to go with a certain roofer, or the roofer led them to believe they weren't getting the roof without their help.

natty Said:

Roofguy Said:

It is an absolutely false premise you work from. I just spent almost a year forcing an insurance company to pay $50,000. It was a money-loser for me, big time.

You mean you did this and did not even get the roofing job?

I did not state a premise. The issue is objectivity and I believe that was the intent of the law. As I said, the profits of the insurance companies are guaranteed. This law does not protect their profits. And you did not force anything. You had no power. All you could do was act as an expert witness. The insurance company merely caved for whatever reason. (But you can always still act the part of Dudley Doright to influence the property owner if you choose-HA.)

The law did not change that which you could do. The thing the law changed was now you will have to argue your position through a public adjuster as always on behalf of the property owner if it gets that far. But chances are, you can argue your position to the insurance adjuster and they just might cave anyway.

I can't tell if you're drunk, high, or just bored and want to argue, but none of what you said makes a lick of sense.

No, I did not take anything out of context. Roofers con there clients-property owners- by implying they have some special power to get insurance companies to approve a claim or get everything they deserve.

Got news for ya bud, I've been getting adjusters to pay claims they previously denied for 3 decades+.

That is a big difference than working with the insurance adjuster to pay for the storm damage or pay a fair price. Here, you are acting as what you should be- an expert witness in regards to roofing.

Haha, wrong! If an adjuster wants to pay $4,000, and I make the case that he should pay $60,000, and he pays $60,000 the role I played is more involved than merely an expert witness.

Dude, you have some funny notions. Bet it's not the first time you've heard that.

Natty has it crystal-clear.

No, Natty has a bad attitude after being beaten up by his competitors for all these years. It's likely no more complicated than that. Broad-brushing a large group of roofers who don't do things his way a con artists is dopey.

Now Boys, remember sometimes we have a harder time explaining something or getting a point across in writing.

We haven't had a good fight in here for a long time. Lively discussions from opposing views are always welcome. But I see this one taking a turn for the worst.

Some of us come from different business environment atmospheres......I happen to agree w/natty. I've had the pleasure, (or not - depending on one's take on it), of conducting business in vastly opposing cultures, so-to-speak.

East of the continental divide it's all about salesmanship.....More so than price. Some of us feel it's stretching over to "conning" of sorts.

Out west, it's mostly price-driven and fiercely competitive. Some of us feel a great portion of that is due to state contractor licensing. The bar's a lot higher to become a contractor in the western states, therefore your competing with more "like" organizations.

Now, before ya git yer panty's in an up-roar.....I'm GENERALIZING here.