Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog : Florida Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Merlin Law Group Law Firm : Tampa, Houston, Coral Gables, Gulfport

The Birmingham News posted an article last week reporting that:

State insurance officials and others are working on legislation that would let Alabamians with insurance claims hire their own adjusters, clarifying what has been a gray area of the law. If passed, there'd be no question Alabamians could hire so-called public adjusters to help establish the scope of their losses and probably get more money from their insurance companies.

Not surprisingly, the insurance industry likes that insureds cannot hire public adjusters. It often makes the claims process a one sided game if the insured is without representation. The horrendous treatment some homeowners and business owners received from their insurance companies after the tornado damage claims last year, may prompt the Alabama legislature to recognize the need for public insurance adjusters.

Legislation was proposed last year to license and regulate public adjusters in Alabama, but it was dropped because of objections from the Alabama State Bar. Now, the Bar is working with state insurance regulators and industry groups on a compromise measure for the legislative session starting in February.

Since the April 27, 2011, tornado struck, Alabama has not received any complaints of actions by public adjusters, but in the past, there were complaints about roofers who improperly negotiated insurance claims. Contractors who act as insurance negotiators are a problem in many areas of the country. Licensing of the profession may make a difference.

Brian Goodman, of the National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters, provided the Birmingham News perspective on how passing a licensing law in Alabama will benefit the state because it will give the state the ability to regulate how these professional assist insureds and protect consumers.

Check back for updates on whether Alabama makes a change this legislative session.

Randy is the older brother of NAPIA's General Counsel, Brian Goodman. Brian did not pass up the opportunity to roast his brother. Brian noted that he received the award earlier than Randy, despite not being a public insurance adjuster. Since I previously received the award, I took the same poke.

Here is a highlight of Randy Goodman's acceptance speech:

Those of us who practice this wonderful profession – the profession of public adjusting – know how unique it is, how challenging it is, and how rewarding it can be on so many levels. As a group we elevate our profession in many ways:

• By becoming more knowledgeable through expanded education.
• By practicing sound ethics every day.
• By providing a service to the consumer that adds significant value to the results they achieve after suffering a loss.
• By showing respect every day for others who participate in the insurance adjusting industry, we receive recognized and well earned respect in return.

Randy Goodman practices what he preaches. I have had the pleasure of working with him, and he has a brilliant and creative mind with a lifetime of experience regarding insurance claims. He has a knack for anticipating issues and a professional politeness under pressure.

If everybody in the insurance claims business dedicated themselves, as Randy Goodman has done, to the concepts found in the four bullet points above, the reputation and performance of insurance claims adjusters would rise substantially. Randy Goodman has truly earned the respect of his peers.

Which leads me to think of this:
 

This trend and aspect of public adjusting is addressed by two can’t miss presentations:

1. 1. NAIC and Insurance Regulation
2. 2. NAIC and the Model Public Adjuster Bill

One of the speakers on these topics will be a friend, colleague and former Montana Insurance Commissioner, John Morrison. The Wikipedia Encyclopedia has this to say about Morrison:

Morrison has chaired two major standing committees of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners: Market Regulation and Consumer Affairs and Health Insurance and Managed Care. Morrison led creation of a nationwide system that collects, aggregates and analyzes information relating to the conduct of insurance companies toward consumers in the marketplace, as well the first internet portal for insurance consumers. He led passage of a model law banning discretionary clauses in insured ERISA plans that now confers broad claims handling rights on millions of Americans. Morrison chaired the committee that kept terrorism coverage in place after September 11 (Great Falls Tribune 9/8/02; Daily Interlake 1/31/02), and led a national crackdown on fake Insurance and medical discount schemes (Consumer Reports 7/3/03, 6/6/04). He was one of a three member delegation that began the relationship between U.S. and Chinese insurance regulators in 2003. As NAIC’s International Vice-Chair for Asia, he represented U.S. insurance regulators in the 2007 U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogues and at the 2008 U.S.-China Insurance Dialogues in Hangzhou, China.

Morrison has written numerous op/eds, including "The Climate Change Peril that Insurers See," Washington Post 9/27/07 (reprinted widely by newspapers and blogs). He has been covered by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, The Times, Money, Forbes, Smart Money, Consumer Reports, Best’s Review, and other national publications.

I have often suggested to Florida public adjusters that they need to learn techniques and best practices from other public adjusters throughout the United States. Networking on matters and educational experiences are the best methods for doing this. This program has the potential for profit and certain education—what else could one ask for other than a fantastic reception at a perfect setting to make education and profitable networking fun?

On that note, the Merlin Law Group will host the Welcome Reception on Thursday December 9. I look forward to seeing you in Miami Beach. Here is a link to the Registration.

Mary Fortson and I were recently reviewing some matters raised by the leadership of the National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters and Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters, when I asked her to provide me the Florida regulations pertaining to these ethical rules. Mary is the General Counsel to the Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters, and we were certain that many of the conduct issues being raised by the leadership of these organizations were covered in these rules. The violation of which subjects an adjuster to severe penalties, including the possible loss of license. These rules were made to protect the public and consumers of insurance as stated in the first part of the ethical code:

Code of Ethics. The work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster's own interests in every instance.

Claims managers need to make certain that they are also adhering to this law. Public adjusters who find company and independent adjusters breaking these rules but do not promptly report the violations to the Department of Financial Services also violate the rules. I recently heard a claims manager suggest that his adjusters had a right to immediate access to the damaged property. Certainly, most policyholders welcome prompt investigation and evaluation, but because of some abuses, access into a policyholder’s home or business is covered in these ethical provisions:

(s) A company adjuster, independent adjuster, attorney, investigator, or other person acting on behalf of an insurer that needs access to an insured or claimant or to the insured property that is the subject of a claim shall provide at least 48 hours notice to the insured or claimant prior to scheduling a meeting with the claimant or an on-site inspection of the insured property. The insured or claimant may deny access to the property if this notice has not been provided.

The Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters has a Code of Ethics as well. It also has a committee that reviews every complaint regarding its members. I suggest that when company or independent adjusters report ethical violations to the Department of Financial Services that they also copy the violation to FAPIA. Here is the FAPIA Code of Ethics:

All members of FAPIA are required to abide by the following Rules of Professional Conduct and Ethics. This better enables us to ensure that our clients, members of the public, are able to receive proper and ethical treatment at all times.

1. The members shall conduct themselves in a spirit of fairness and justice to their clients, the Insurance Companies, and the public.

2. Members shall refrain from improper solicitation.

3. No misrepresentation of any kind shall be made to an insured or to the Insurance Companies.

4. Commission rates shall be fair and equitable, and strictly in accordance with the prevailing laws or regulations of the Florida Insurance Department.

5. Members shall conduct themselves so as to command respect and confidence. They shall work in harmony with one another, with their clients, and the Insurance Companies' representatives, so as to foster a cordial and harmonious relationship with all branches of the insurance business, and with the general public.

6. Members must be fitted, by the knowledge and experience, for the work they undertake. They must not endanger the interests of the public adjusting profession, or risk injustice to insureds or to the Insurance Companies, by attempting to handle losses or claims for which they are not qualified, and for which they cannot find competent technical assistance.

7. Members shall not engage in the unauthorized practice of law.

8. Members shall not acquire any interest in salvaged property or participate in any way, directly or indirectly, in the reconstruction, repair, or restoration of damaged property, except with the knowledge, consent and permission of the insured.

9. Members shall be cooperative and assist one another in every possible way.

10. Members shall not disseminate or use any form of agreement, advertising, or any printed matter that is harmful to the profession of public adjusting, or which does not comply with the rules and regulations of the Florida Insurance Department, or which might subject public adjusting and public adjusters to criticism or disrespect.

The enforcement of ethical rules by adjusters leads to a recurrent theme that has to be addressed by Alex Sink and the people operating the Department of Financial Services. Alex Sink is a wonderful public servant. Many in the insurance industry are wholeheartedly supporting her quest to become Florida’s next governor. And, when I hear adjusters and their managers say that when they follow the law, report serious violations of ethical laws to the Department of Financial Services, but the Department essentially says that they are “too busy” to do anything about it, I know she will make a change or change the people who are not doing their job. The California Insurance Commissioner was once sued for not fulfilling the statutory duties of that job.

Somebody needs to find out if our paid regulators are either too lazy or too overworked to do the important job of enforcing the laws. This is a serious matter, but many have been complaining about the lack of action by the Department of Financial Services for far too long. Something has to change soon.

Good, honest, and “playing by the rules” adjusters need to know that their profession and the state will hold wrongdoers accountable for breaking rules. Otherwise, why have any rules?

Here are the ethical requirements of adjusters in Florida:

69B-220.201. Ethical Requirements.

(1) Definitions. The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this rule:

(a) “Adjuster,“ when used without further specification, includes all types and classes of insurance adjusters, (company, independent, and public), subject to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, regardless of whether resident or nonresident, and whether permanent, temporary, or emergency licensees.

(b) “Client“ includes both clients and potential clients; and means any person who consults with or hires an adjuster to provide adjusting services.

(c) “Department“ means the Florida Department of Financial Services.

(d) “Person“ includes natural persons and legal entities.

(2) Violation.

(a) Violation of any provision of this rule shall constitute grounds for administrative action against the licensee.

(b) A breach of any provision of this rule constitutes an unfair claims settlement practice.

(3) Code of Ethics. The work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster's own interests in every instance. The following are standards of conduct that define ethical behavior, and shall constitute a code of ethics that shall be binding on all adjusters:

(a) An adjuster shall: not directly or indirectly refer or steer any claimant needing repairs or other services in connection with a loss to any person with whom the adjuster has an undisclosed financial interest, or who will or is reasonably anticipated to provide the adjuster any direct or indirect compensation for the referral or for any resulting business.

(b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally.

1. An adjuster shall not provide favored treatment to any claimant.

2. An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract.

(c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the in-sured.

(d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation.

(e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled.

(f) An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim.

(g) An adjuster shall promptly report to the Department any conduct by any licensed insurance representative of this state which violates any provision of the Insurance Code or Department rule or order.

(h) An adjuster shall exercise extraordinary care when dealing with elderly clients to assure that they are not disadvantaged in their claims transactions by failing memory or impaired cognitive processes.

(i) An adjuster shall not negotiate or effect settlement directly or indirectly with any third-party claimant repre-sented by an attorney, if the adjuster has knowledge of such representation, except with the consent of the attorney. For purposes of this subsection, the term “third-party claimant“ does not include the insured or the insured's resident relatives.

(j) An adjuster is permitted to interview any witness, or prospective witness, without the consent of opposing counsel or party. In doing so, however, the adjuster shall scrupulously avoid any suggestion calculated to induce a witness to suppress or deviate from the truth, or in any degree affect the witness's appearance or testimony during deposition or at the trial. If any witness making or giving a signed or recorded statement so requests, the witness shall be given a copy of the statement.

(k) An adjuster shall not advise a claimant to refrain from seeking legal advice, nor advise against the retention of counsel to protect the claimant's interest.

(l) An adjuster shall not attempt to negotiate with or obtain any statement from a claimant or witness at a time that the claimant or witness is, or would reasonably be expected to be, in shock or serious mental or emotional distress as a result of physical, mental, or emotional trauma associated with a loss. The adjuster shall not conclude a set-tlement when the settlement would be disadvantageous to, or to the detriment of, a claimant who is in the traumatic or distressed state described above.

(m) An adjuster shall not knowingly fail to advise a claimant of the claimant's claim rights in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and of the applicable laws of this state. An adjuster shall exercise care not to engage in the unlicensed practice of law as prescribed by the Florida Bar.

(n) A company or independent adjuster shall not draft special releases called for by the unusual circumstances of any settlement or otherwise draft any form of release, unless advance written approval by the insurer can be demonstrated to the Department. Except as provided above, a company or independent adjuster is permitted only to fill in the blanks in a release form approved by the insurer they represent.

(o) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster's current expertise.

(p) No person shall, as a public adjuster, represent any person or entity whose claim the adjuster has previously adjusted while acting as an adjuster representing any insurer or independent adjusting firm. No person shall, as a company or independent adjuster, represent him or herself or any insurer or independent adjusting firm against any person or entity that the adjuster previously represented as a public adjuster.

(q) A public adjuster shall not represent or imply to any client or potential client that insurers, company adjusters, or independent adjusters routinely attempt to, or do in fact, deprive claimants of their full rights under an insurance policy. No insurer, independent adjuster, or company adjuster shall represent or imply to any claimant that public adjusters are unscrupulous, or that engaging a public adjuster will delay or have other adverse effect upon the settlement of a claim.

(r) No public adjuster, while so licensed in the Department's records, may represent or act as a company adjuster, independent adjuster, or general lines agent.

(s) A company adjuster, independent adjuster, attorney, investigator, or other person acting on behalf of an insurer that needs access to an insured or claimant or to the insured property that is the subject of a claim shall provide at least 48 hours notice to the insured or claimant prior to scheduling a meeting with the claimant or an on-site inspection of the insured property. The insured or claimant may deny access to the property if this notice has not been provided.

The article noted a growing trend of delay and nonpayment many months following a loss:

A large property insurance claim can turn into a soap opera, with dozens of high-end, big personalities trying to steer the plot line. It's not a secret to claims experts, or any risk manager who's faced one, that settling a large loss has only gotten more dramatic, and difficult, in the last couple decades....

...34 percent of physical damage claims are settled before the property is repaired or replaced and 37 percent up to six months after.

Only 17 percent of time/element claims, on the other hand, were settled before the end of the period of liability, while 68 percent took one to 12 months after the period for settlement.

The general trend, however, is that larger, complex losses are taking more time to settle...

As Harvey Goodman often does, he disagreed in part with the article's conclusion that more complex claims require various claims experts or consultants that slow the claim process. He made an important point that the survey never considered public adjusters, which is kind of interesting since they are the only legally licensed individuals who can adjust the loss for policyholders. Goodman commented:

"Take the question about what types of outside professionals were hired by the insured. Goodman took umbrage with the fact that he and his colleagues--public adjusters--weren't even an option...

Insureds bring in Goodman and his colleagues to make sure their interests are being represented as the claims resolution plot unfolds. And we're not just talking about large Fortune 1000 clients. He's dealt with $50 million companies with multimillion dollar losses and no in-house risk management.

"They are so thinly staffed they often have no resources to dedicate to the insurance claims process," he said.

Goodman disagreed with the survey's finding that insureds' expectations about the extent of their insurance coverage diminish significantly during the course of claims settlement. His experience is that expectations increase the longer a settlement takes.

The veteran adjuster also didn't agree with the key takeaway, that property insurance can never fully cover a loss. Sure, there might be disagreement over numbers. But there is coverage out there to cover other economic hits, like loss of value and potential damage to business relationships: for instance, extended business income coverage.

Most importantly, Goodman stressed, it's up to insureds to properly measure their loss. If you don't ask for the right amount, you're not going to get it."

It has been my impression that many get around state licensing requirements by calling themselves "consultants." These "consultants" are out of control in the insurance claims business. Insurance regulators and State Legal Bars need to start prosecuting so called unlicensed "loss consultants" and "claims consultants" for adjusting without a license and practicing law. Legal rules regarding licenses need to followed and those responsible for enforcing the rules need to do their jobs because the rules were made to protect the public from exactly what is going on in the claims industry.

Policyholders should hire licensed, experienced, and dedicated professionals. They should be careful about any individuals or organizations claiming to be "loss consultants." These “loss consultants” are violating the regulatory, and often criminal, laws of most states and have no regulator looking over their ethics and work to determine whether they are acting in accordance with the law.

I felt his discussion of the commercial and homeowners policy forms was excellent. The points he made regarding the science of drywall, covered risks, ensuing or resulting damage, causation, and exclusions were clear and simple and should be replicated by other attorneys.

The one problem and question raised by those in attendance was the conclusion:

"Is there really coverage--what is the covered cause of loss that is not excluded or is an exception to an exclusion?"

I remind everyone that the FC&S Bulletin has concluded that there is coverage for Chinese drywall under the first party policy, as I noted in FC&S Says Ensuing Loss Coverage Applies to Chinese Drywall Claims. I will post more on Ed's lecture and this topic later tonight. Regardless of the conclusion, the analysis up to that point was an excellent lecture. It made the cost of the conference worth the investment.

The PowerPoint presentation from the lecture is available here.

Slaten Bickford of Adjusters International grew up in the business of public adjusting. His father, Pat Bickford is a past president of the National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters. Slaten graduated from Columbia, an Ivy League school. From personal experience, he is one of the smartest, most passionate, and hardest working young public adjusters in the business.

Slaten Bickford spent a couple days driving me to each part of the Port of New Orleans property after we were retained as counsel in the fall of 2007. We had to cover 26 miles of property along the Mississippi River. Even after two years following Katrina, various parts of the Port were difficult to traverse. Indeed, one of the unique supplements to the claim were the tires that were ruined from nails and debris.

Slaten moved to New Orleans from Denver to help adjust this massive claim. Teams of estimators and adjusters were poring over the loss locations. It was obvious to me that while there were older and more experienced adjusters for the insurance companies and with Adjusters International, Slaten was going to be the best choice for me to rely upon as our client's primary adjuster. He was the one person with the detailed knowledge of the claims from all perspectives. He had the organizational skills, creativity, and historical knowledge of what had transpired before to help me refigure the damage into a proof which would withstand a critical review by the insurance company's team of attorneys and experts.

As a result of our close working relationship, I became very familiar with Slaten and his work habits. Since he is about twenty years younger than I, there are some humorous generational differences in how we approach things. I am convinced that professionals 30 years of age and younger live their lives on a laptop and a cellphone. Everything that Slaten produced or was presented to him regarding the Port claim was on his laptop. I asked a question, he looked at his laptop--no paper and nothing tangible that I could hold. For a guy that learned how to practice law with the IBM Selectric and carbon paper copies, he and I would laugh as I tried to navigate in his virtual file world of photos, spreadsheets, scanned images, and emails.

I also learned from Slaten that "the office" was the place his laptop was at, and at the time he was working. Neither were normal nor set. Going to another country to romance a young woman who would later become his fiancé' did not mean stopping work for the Port of New Orleans. 'Where are you working from?' was a question I frequently asked. The answer had some pretty exotic and out of the way venues.

The estimators reporting to him also lived in this virtual world of information sharing with massive data on spreadsheets exchanged and worked on collaboratively despite these individuals being thousands of miles from each other. I was amused while standing at a particular structure and after asking a question to Slaten, as his laptop would open and then he would communicate on cell and email--often discussing photos and videos of damaged structures with others to get my inquiry satisfied immediately. This type of efficient productivity was not possible when I was a young professional, but is the current status of how people work together in the modern adjustment era.

Slaten announced one day at lunch that he planned to propose to his Tulane medical student girfriend. I cannot remember a person as positive and ready to become engaged. Laura and Slaten are both very bright and share a love for informality in their affairs. For example, their wedding was a typical New Orleans affair with beer being served during the ceremony. If brains are determined by genetics, their children will be brilliant.

I was happy to see that so many of the estimators Slaten worked with were there to share the moment. While I demanded that certain work be done until it was done right, Slaten was the guy in the field, drinking beer with those guys, and explaining why my needs as the Port's attorney required work to be reconfigured for proof at a trial---and always right away. I am certain that, but for Slaten, some of those hardworking estimators would have simply walked off the job rather than deal with my demands.

Many of us in my line of work tend to be nomads going from one unfortunate place of disaster to another. The marriage of Lara Yanovsky and Slaten Bickford will certainly be a case study of logistics because Slaten works long and hard in far away places, and most doctors work pretty long hours in one place. I guess modern technology will help them stay close even if they are far away.

So, yesterday was a good time in New Orleans. As we flew over the Mississippi Coast and New Orleans, I was reminded of how many other good things can sometimes come out of catastrophe. 

The article suggests that a public adjusting firm violated specific fee rules which are mandated by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation:

"The complaint in the lawsuit seeks class action status and alleges Ameriloss
overcharged some clients. Specifically, the suit alleges Ameriloss sought fees of 33.5 percent for adjusting a claim by Clyde Lightbourn related to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, when state law limited fees to 10 percent.

Lightbourn attorney Lance Harke, of Harke & Clasby in Miami, said his client
argued with Ameriloss about the fee, but the company insisted a third was the “standard” amount, and Lightbourn was desperate to get additional money for needed repairs.

“It got us pretty angry to think someone in that situation could be taken
advantage of in this way. It’s price-gouging,” said Adam Moskowitz, an
attorney with Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton in Coral Gables, who is handling
the lawsuit with Harke.

Lightbourn received a favorable declaratory statement from the Florida
Department of Financial Services dated Jan. 13 that said “the public
adjusting firm [Ameriloss] could not properly charge a fee in excess of 10
percent under the specific facts of this case.”

Most public adjusters charge fees no more than ten percent. In the vast majority of the claims I review, public adjuster services result in a recovery far greater than the ten percent fee and everybody is very happy, except the insurance company.

My primary concern is a longstanding one addressed repeatedly by most leaders in the public adjuster field--public adjusters must not practice law. Doing so is illegal and will subject public adjusters to fines, loss of their licenses and jail. It will certainly lead to calls by insurers to prohibit public adjusting. The public adjusting industry must remain vigilant to prevent errant public adjusters from committing acts that endanger the profession and service for all: providing legal advice, giving legal opinions, and arguing law.

It is very easy to overstep the bounds of public adjusting and engage in the practice of law. For example, when a public adjuster advises a client to not file a lawsuit and go to appraisal or administrative appeal, that is practicing law. Whenever a person tells another what type of legal procedure should be taken to resolve a dispute where competing legal benefits and rights are at issue and need analysis, that is the practice of law. People who are not lawyers do this everyday.

This example, and hundreds of others like it, were a primary concern of the late Paul Cordish, the General Counsel for the National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters. Virtually every annual address Cordish presented to public adjusters had remarks and warnings about not practicing law. In my discussions with him, it was obvious he was concerned that some in the audience listened, but failed to behave accordingly. We both recognized how legal analysis aids adjustment disputes and why public adjusters so often fall into the trap of acting like lawyers and practicing law. The problem is that it is illegal--criminal in most states.

Public adjusters help policyholders in a number of different ways. There are many bright and dedicated people who spend their life helping policyholders obtain the full benefits owed following a disaster. I am humbled to be acknowledged as a past National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters Co-Person of the Year. I suggest that all public adjusters realize the significance of Paul Cordish’s warnings. If a class action over a fee amount has been filed, how many public insurance firms could be sued for routinely practicing law?

In this case, my instruction to public adjusters is simple: Just Don't Do It!

From the surveys, I know virtually everyone in attendance felt the same way.  I believe it was the result of the audience's knowledge and experience.  Our firm did a survey earlier in the year to determine what adjusters enjoyed about seminars, what they did not like, and what they wanted to get out of the seminar.  We found, not surprisingly, that they hated to listen to lawyers "preach" about what the law is regarding a topic of insurance law.  Instead, they wanted to know practical tips regarding their business, how to address certain difficult issues that come up during claims, and how to quickly get full claims benefits to their clients. 

In response to the survey, we decided to do the entire seminar in a different manner.  The topics were chosen from the survey we conducted.  We provided an encyclopedia of insurance law and regulations on the topics the adjusters told us they wanted to understand.  The materials helped the various Departments of Insurance approve continuing education requirements, while analyzing the topics our audience wanted.  The panelists talked about their experiences as tips rather than "war stories."  Smaller losses which everybody handles were discussed as well as how clauses in policies can be used to provide better and quicker indemnity to policyholders. 

We discussed subtle and interpersonal aspects about how to handle situational aspects of claims with the insurance company.  Questions and differing viewpoints were encouraged.  For those with a passion for helping policyholders get what is deserved, there was only one place to be on Friday, and I felt honored to be there learning while helping lead the seminar.  Many from the insurance industry perspective often talk poorly about public adjusters. Sometimes the criticism is justified.  Often, it is out of professional jealousy or envy because the public adjusters can make significantly more money than company adjusters.  However, how many insurance company adjusters have law or accounting degrees?  About ten percent of those in my Friday audience had those credentials. 

Marvin Milton, a public adjuster from Boston, went to Stanford undergraduate and then Harvard law school. Of the tens of thousands of insurance company field adjusters hired by insurance companies, I know of none with such qualifications.  At one point, a person in the audience asked me if it would be "bad faith" for a commercial property insurance adjuster to fail to remind or inform a policyholder of extra expense benefits.  My answer was that the vast, vast majority of insurance company adjusters are not even trained to understand the nuances of extra expense benefits and how those coverages may help policyholders. 

The sad truth is that most insurance companies fail to provide such information to their customers because the insurance company claim personnel do not understand the benefits available under the product they sell.  Most insurance companies simply hire accounting firms to figure out what may be payable without truly assisting their customers by explaining how valuable and helpful those benefits can be.  When policyholders are deciding whether and which public adjuster they should hire, I suggest that they look for somebody they can trust and who has the credentials and experience of NAPIA membership.  Often, the benefits obtained by public adjusting firms are far in excess of the minimal fees charged.