Insurance Company Declares War on Public Adjusters
Could you imagine the outcry if the government forced you to waive legal rights to obtain needed services? Sawgrass Mutual is essentially doing that with its own customers---and the Office of Insurance Regulation and the new Consumer Advocate are doing nothing about it.
Sawgrass Mutual is sent out the following letter to its members:
Some have suggested that because this is a mutual insurance company, it can ask its members to agree upon something that would otherwise be illegal. The proposed agreement violates Florida regulations which prevent insurers from suggesting, as a consideration for obtaining an insurance policy, that policyholders not obtain legal or public adjusting assistance after a claim.
I have read nothing which differentiates mutual insurance companies from compliance with the insurance code. If an insurer could do this, why not allow other illegal requirements in by-laws of mutual insurance companies?
The reason is obvious--management of insurance companies want to gain additional profits and other competitive advantages; by prohibiting policyholders from valuable assistance in the adjustment of a claim, insurance companies increase the likelihood that a policyholder will accept less than the full value of a claim. While there is no guarantee that public adjusters will find coverages and scopes of damage missed by insurance company adjusters, the statistics obtained by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation suggest otherwise. My own experience is that insurance companies routinely underestimate damage amounts and fail to pay for or disclose coverages available under the policy.
Sawgrass Mutual’s attempt to limit its members’ rights is very much against the members’ interests. The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation should be doing something about it -- or offer an honest explanation why it is not.
Dear Ms. Julie Patel,
Thank you for taking my call today and allowing me to comment on the recent news story you published entitled, “Insurer wants a ban on policyholders hiring their own Claims Representative”!
As I stated, I represent many public insurance adjusters on a national level and this article speaks to the issues policyholders often experience at the hands of Insurance Companies when they suffer a loss of any magnitude in their home or business. The role of the Public Insurance Adjuster is to advocate on behalf of the consumer/policyholder. For many years the Public Insurance Adjuster profession has been widely seen as an ethical profession but it is worth mentioning that very few people even know the value a Public Insurance Adjuster can bring to resolving their claim professionally and successfully.
Which gets me to another point, if you read the OPPAGA Report a Public Insurance Adjusters they are seen as a necessary support service in assisting the public and businesses that often do not have the expertise in assessing the true loss at hand
Julie, I would be more than willing to go on record to attest to the stringent guidelines that AAPIA provides in educating and informing our members regarding ethical as well as compliance issues in every state.
I look forward to your follow-up article, and if you have time to visit my booth at the NAIC fall Convention in Orlando, Florida next week I would be willing to grant an interview.
Please call my direct line 202.422.5092
Also included you may find helpful.
http://www.jayfeinman.com/
Sincerely,
Gene
Gene G. Veno
President, AAPIA
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
10th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
202.422.5092
www.aapia.org
How deceptive... I had to laugh when they explain that they pay 100% and they don't want the insured to lose money by having to give 20% of that money to public adjuster. They really care don't they?
Good find....
Oddly enough, I not only am a public adjuster, but have one of these policies. Their meeting is on Tuesday October 19, 2010 to vote on this measure. If anyone would like to attend let me know. My name is Winston Heverly (561) 629-2960. It should be pretty eventful when I get down voicing my opinion or debating the issue.
Strange but I thought a policy was a binding contract between two consenting parties. In a free market economy don't the policyholders of Sawgrass have the option of agreeing or going elsewhere for insurance. I know PA's and lawyers perish the thought but you don't always need either to get what you're due. To infer otherwise is blatant polticking.