A phone call to our office today from a public adjuster colleague in Boston confirms what we all are seeing on TV. The call started out this way… “Dick as you know our firm has been in the public adjusting business for a long time and we have never seen anything like this.  We need help.” This call is from a good guy and person I have known for years and whose firm enjoys a stellar reputation.  For years we have referred clients back and forth to each other. His firm’s phones no doubt have been ringing off the hook and I suspect their email boxes are full. To my friend rest assured, the cavalry is saddling up. We can’t let a colleague and friend down.

A rising problem that we in the public adjusting profession have been dealing with for years seems to finally have caught the attention of Florida officials. That is, the practice of insurance adjusting without a license by roofers and restoration contractors who sometimes are also unlicensed. A recent article, Illegal for roofers to act as insurance adjusters, experts warn perfectly illustrates the growing problem that takes advantage of homeowners who are in a stressful situation trying to repair their property and get a fair settlement. Hats off to Nancy Dominquez of The Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters who states, “when you have individuals or companies trying to convince homeowners that their contracting or roofing license permits them to handle insurance claims, that's incorrect. Not only is it incorrect, it's against the law.”

Here is an insurance claim question that we recently were asked to weigh in on as a contributing member of insurance claim experts for United Policyholders who advocates for property owners. 

Q. We received a question from a North Carolina consumer regarding a roof replacement due to windstorm damage. The carrier is claiming that only a "spot-repair" is required under the policy but the homeowner has requested a full replacement. This position is supported by the North Carolina Department of Insurance, yet I find scant case law to support it. Further, when I browse through the North Carolina Insurance Code, I find a reference to "like, kind, and quality" v. "functional" repairs but I'm not clear on what this means in practice. If you have had any recent experience with this type of scenario, I would be interested in your insight.