As policyholders begin to hear back from their insurance company regarding their Hurricane Michael insurance claim, many will learn that the amount offered by their respective insurer is not sufficient to pay for their complete loss and damages. Some may even learn part of their claim is denied. This is common when there is widespread damage to a geographic area and especially true with more complicated commercial claims to businesses, condominiums and hotels where methods to fix or replace damage can become complicated. There can be many reasons for this including overworked adjusters not documenting specific damages, out of state adjusters not familiar with the market or inside claim adjusters who have never personally seen the claim simply denying certain parts of the claim. 

Read More

Non-weather related water loss insurance claims in Florida are on the rise. So says Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater who heads up the Florida Department of Financial Services. The problem is so great that his Florida Consumer Advocate, Ms. Sha’ Ron James called for a summit and invited all stakeholders to attend. 

Mr. Atwater is not the only one sounding the alarm on water damage claim issues and its companion Assignment of Benefits (AOB). Based on my following the news on this hot topic it seems most insurance carriers in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach county areas are all in agreement that the situation is getting out of control and in fact may be critical, requiring rate increases and further reductions in insurance property policy coverages for water losses.

Read More

First I want to share some atmospheric observations and conditions that are clearly changing in the Caribbean and may play into the El Niño, La Niña narrative. On my trip last week to the Leeward Island of St Maarten I had the opportunity to visit with old clients, friends and observe changes that have occurred since my last trip in 2015. 
Read More

The following is a short primer and history lesson for the insured property consumer on these two fool’s errands. For those of us in the property insurance adjusting business, we see the storm clouds gathering given all the recent rhetoric about allowing a policyholder’s insurance company to repair their property following a covered loss.  Given our knowledge and experience, we know the likely outcome of this latest scheme to pump up underwriting profits, but my guess is not many laymen do.  Make no mistake about it, your policy premiums will not drop if these managed repair programs being touted as a savior for you and the insurance industry is approved by the Tallahassee regulators. The irony is that managed repair and its stepchild “option to repair” will most likely be bad for both the insured and the insurer. So given what may be the inevitable, let’s examine both of these repair schemes. 

Read More

Insurance companies have started exercising their options to repair under many of their contracts. What this means is that they are bringing in contractors of their choice to fix the damages resulting from a property loss they cover. Let’s be honest.  They have a right to do this, but it often isn’t in the best interest of their customers when they choose to do so. Why?
Read More

A great deal of information is being published regarding some insurance companies’ plans to implement so called “Managed Repair” programs. The rationale is that they will reduce costs (and I assume increase profits) by partnering with restoration contractors and some independent adjusting companies who supposedly will oversee the work and provide some sort of due diligence. This will lead to the latest scheme being proposed to a reduction in the cost of insurance premiums. So the most important questions we should be asking are: What’s the real cost to the policyholder and will rate increases continue despite these managed repair programs?

Read More

For as long as I can remember, property policies had language that allowed insurance carriers to exercise their “right to repair” the policyholder’s property. There was always a catch for some of the insurers since there was generally a requirement that they had to give the policyholder 30 days notice after they received a proof of loss. Some policies may have had slightly different language, but for the most part if they missed a deadline date, they were out of luck.

Read More