Comments on Unauthorized Public Adjusting
A post earlier this week, Greenspan Public Adjuster Interviewed About Unauthorized Public Adjusting, generated a number of comments and questions, both public and private. Many well meaning individuals probably overstep bounds and violate the law. Some are simply scamming.
Debbie Maroy, of ClaimSmentor and Dimechimes, which are excellent educational sites for adjusters, made the following observation:
Chip- I posted a link to this on our claims group at Linkedin as even independent adjusters who work for roofing firms when independent adjusting assignments are low are often faced with this problem when roofing firms ask them to act as negotiators with the insurers. I always point them to this California insurance commissioner case as many of them were approached by the contractor to work for them. I had warned them it sounded like public adjusting and sure enough not many months later the CA insurance department issued a press release about their unlicensed PA work....
....
I hope this helps independent adjusters as well make sure they are not participating in unlicensed public adjusting when working for roofing firms or other contractors. Thanks for bringing up this important topic.
The press release she referred to noted:
A Palos Verdes company and its operators will pay $200,000 in fines for posing as insurance claims adjusters after the Angora fire in South Lake Tahoe last summer.
Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner says Paramount Disaster Recovery also agreed to pay the state $75,000 in litigation costs.
Steve Slepcevic, 39, of Palos Verdes, and Matthew Todd, 48, and Charlie Rose, 43, both of Redondo Beach, were ordered to cease and desist operations in August.
Poizner's office said they acted as certified public insurance adjusters and signed contracts with Tahoe-area fire victims.
The contract language language at issue in this matter was similar to that I have seen in dozens of contracts used by non-public adjusters:
13. On or around March 2000, the Department was informed that PARAMOUNT offered customers or potential customers Contract/Authorization/Designations that included the following language: “If insured elects not to repair property, but instead receives loss settlement from insurance company, Paramount shall receive 20% of THE AGREED UPON ESTIMATE, without deduction for depreciation or Insured’s deductible.”
14. After interviews and discussions between Department personnel and
PARAMOUNT regarding the contract language identified in paragraph number 13 herein, PARAMOUNT represented to the Department, in written correspondence dated January 22, 2003, that at that time the only contract they were using did not include the language contained in paragraph number 13 herein, but instead included the following contract language: “Paramount will be paid for in full for repairing/replacing Client’s damaged property. Paramount will receive the full amount of the total agreed upon estimate (i.e. the estimate Paramount and the Insurance Company agree upon), without deduction for depreciation or Client’s deductible. Paramount shall perform all work according to the agreed upon estimate and will perform all work to meet
current uniform building codes and/or restore property to pre-loss condition.
If you think that you may be in violation of adjusting laws, see an independent attorney and get a legal opinion about what to do. Many private emails suggested that these occurrences are not isolated, but that the enforcement divisions do little about this issue. I would not count on that continuing in the future.
Now in days Insurance is very important for the busy life.I saw your blog.It is very nice and interesting.Mainly your insurance point is like me.Thanks............