You Don't Deserve to Profit

Welcome to the live stream event titled "You Don't Deserve to Make a Profit," where we challenge the pervasive and unfounded notion among insurance adjusters that Overhead and Profit (O&P) isn't warranted on mitigation simply because it doesn’t require coordination of multiple trades. This flawed argument undermines the economic viability of the restoration industry, suggesting that the complexities and financial realities of mitigation work don't justify a standard business model of profitability.
Today, we will dissect this argument, showcasing the necessity of O&P for sustaining business operations and ensuring quality restoration services. The argument against O&P not only disregards the administrative and logistical efforts involved in mitigation but also fails to recognize the industry standards that support fair compensation for all restoration services. Join us as we stand up for the rights of restorers to run profitable businesses, essential for the health of the industry and the satisfaction of the insured.

[@jzarudny]

Thank you for this video Andy!

[@ClaimsDelegates]

The knowledge base documents, such as industry whitepapers and position statements, consistently emphasize that Overhead and Profit (O&P) are legitimate and necessary components of the billing for restoration work. Here are some key points highlighted across various documents:
1. **Nature of Restoration Work**: O&P covers general business expenses and profit margins necessary for the sustainability of a restoration business. These include administrative costs, staff salaries, equipment maintenance, and other operational costs that aren't directly billable to a single project but are essential for running a business【24†source】【25†source】.
2. **Industry Standards**: The documents assert that O&P should be factored into cost estimates as standard practice. This aligns with the broader construction and insurance industries, where O&P are recognized components of total job costs to ensure companies maintain financial health and can reinvest in their businesses【28†source】.
3. **Insurance Practices**: There is criticism of insurance practices that attempt to exclude O&P from restoration invoices, especially when such exclusions are based on arbitrary criteria like the number of trades involved in a project. The position papers argue that such practices are not in line with fair and reasonable compensation for work performed and can lead to underpayment for services that adequately restore properties to their pre-loss condition【26†source】【27†source】.
4. **Legal and Contractual Obligations**: The documents often mention that insurers are legally and contractually obliged to pay for all reasonable and necessary restoration costs, which include O&P. Excluding these costs can lead to disputes and potential legal challenges【24†source】【25†source】.
5. **Adjuster and Contractor Interaction**: There is emphasis on the necessity for clear communication and mutual respect between adjusters and contractors. Contractors are encouraged to assert their rights to include O&P in their billing, particularly when their contracts with the insured do not limit such inclusions【31†source】.
Overall, the knowledge base strongly supports the inclusion of Overhead and Profit in restoration billing, advocating for fair compensation practices that recognize the full scope of expenses and efforts involved in providing restoration services.

[@user-bb5ux8xz6r]

Can I ask where your source footnotes lead?