This video raises a really important question about the legality of supplement companies charging a percentage of settled claims. It's great that they're shedding light on this complex issue.
Great video and great information. Contractors should always be upfront and honest and document any supplements that they do so they can prove and justify to the carrier why that item needed to be repaired or replaced in the process of completing them work. Great work as always Roofing Insights!
Sounds like you're a homeowner or a lawyer...? They have to or the supp will simply be denied or worse they could be questioned for Lying to an insurance carrier which is definitely a potential felony with prison time here in FL..
I don't know Mauricio, but the job of the supplementer is to ensure that the contractor is making his profit margin. Not "juicing" the claim that Badger claims, it is to ensure that the insurance company is paying what they are supposed to within the guidelines of the software they use "Xactimate".
Good video, professionally done and appreciate the unbiased. I would disagree that if you are a "extension of contractor" that you may not speak with homeowner, actually you can. It's what you say and how you act that is important, we at Boss Up try to help and eliminate middlemen to all clients. As for flat vs percentage, the need to focus on larger files, add fluff is increased, with flat a claim of any cost is dealt with the same respect. I think more on this topic to educate all of us is needed in the industry as we all want to make it better! Hats off Dmitry.
i think it's just as easily justified to charge a % of the claim - look at it from the "work" side. The larger the claim, the more "Complexity and/or Coordination" (Hint-Hint there for O&P) the claim will entail. This means more trades, more subs, more paperwork, more back-and-forth a possibility 5x the payout timeline from the carrier vs. a simple "cost-incurred" tarp job. Spend More Time and Energy and Resources on a Larger Claim = Get Paid More. EG: If i paint your front door with Walmart blue vs. matching the ruby ring color that your wife wears which takes me weeks of research, 9 colors to blend and a custom paintbrush made of monkey hair to apply it with - should I get paid the same?
First, UPPA is unconstitutional. Next, Steve Badger's conflict of interest argument is horrible. He uses it to justify UPPA as well. Every business and industry has the exact same "conflict of interest". He has a "conflict of interest" when working for and billing hours to insurance companies. More importantly, Insurance Carriers employing and controlling Adjusters is the biggest conflict of interest in the industry. They have every interest in minimizing claim liability and losses. If he wants to push this nonsense, we should have third party state-licensed adjusters that are randomly assigned to different claims. He basically has to advocate price controls of all industries to ultimately be ideologically consistent with his "conflict" argument.
What Roofing Insights has done in this explanation video for the industry is to clearly denote the need for contractors to turn to their legal counsels and ask for a written legal letter of opinion (LLO) for how they manage and handle that part of their business because exactly as Dmitry says, it is not possible for Roofing Insights to do the legal research in every state in the Union, that even if they could somehow, could be rendered as a legal letter of opinion EACH contractor would then rest and rely on when someone comes along claiming that they in their respective state is participating in or collaborating on UPPA, when what may be inferred in Florida (when statutes language isn't very well defined or goes through as many changes as it has in the last few years), may not be the case at all in Arkansas, but may mean everything for a contractor in Pennsylvania.
A lot to unpack here🤠 Firstly we should allow the free market to dictate how supplement companies should charge. Even if 99% decided to have a union brain and charge a contingency fee there will always be a company that will undercut the market and do it for a reasonable flat fee and fill that hole in the market. Do your research on who you're hiring for a contractor. I can't imagine coming across a GC that can't write an estimate or at least put together bids in order to get the value of the loss. But if said contractor must hire a supplement company that's charging a contingency fee how could the supplement company enforce that? If anything I would understand a PA using an estimate company to write the estimate on the front end because when you get licensed to be a PA it doesn't come with a crash construction course 😂 you're just an expert on policy and how to get coverage to cover the eniterity of the loss.
How can you inflate a claim? The IC has all the power. Item 1. Yes Item 2. No Item 3. No Item 4. No It shouldn't be this difficult. If they pay you for work. And you don't complete that work. That should be the Issue.
Because it is difficult... Most homeowners have no idea how crooked, deceiving, and cheap their carrier really is. Now if the carrier's desk adjuster had ever been on a roof, knew the basic components of a roof, and actually did a decent job "estimating or adjusting" then no, PA's wouldn't have a job and most attorneys would also practice elsewhere, but the carriers prey on the inexperienced homeowner and in my state of FL - they "bank" on the loss of Atty Fees and Costs can be recouped knowing most h/owners haven't the time or money to sue them when they're paying these costs from claim proceeds..
Not an issue, the carrier fulfilled their duty of indemnifying for the loss, whatever the homeowner wants to do afterwards is up to the mortgage and the owner.
Short and to the point Richard. As we mentioned, a solid and precise estimate is 80% of the effort. Following up with carriers should not be that complicated and painful if they were more responsive to the parties involved; this frustrates and wastes so much time on the contractor’s end that they would rather pay a supplemental company to help them ease the pain.
Steve only focuses on the horrible examples in this space. We don't "pump up" our estimates. We write what is going to be installed by the roofer and usually because the adjuster missed it. Pumping these things up is a waste of time and money for everyone involved. You don't come out ahead in the end.
This video raises a really important question about the legality of supplement companies charging a percentage of settled claims. It's great that they're shedding light on this complex issue.
Great video and great information. Contractors should always be upfront and honest and document any supplements that they do so they can prove and justify to the carrier why that item needed to be repaired or replaced in the process of completing them work. Great work as always Roofing Insights!
Sounds like you're a homeowner or a lawyer...?
They have to or the supp will simply be denied or worse they could be questioned for Lying to an insurance carrier which is definitely a potential felony with prison time here in FL..
I don't know Mauricio, but the job of the supplementer is to ensure that the contractor is making his profit margin. Not "juicing" the claim that Badger claims, it is to ensure that the insurance company is paying what they are supposed to within the guidelines of the software they use "Xactimate".
Badger has never installed a roof or siding in his life. Does he know what a pipe jack is?
Every public adjuster I’ve ever met has not been able to comprehend that 95% of all residential claims are settled by a contractor.
All they can ever say is… that’s public adjusting. Sure pal. 🙄🙄🙄
Good video, professionally done and appreciate the unbiased. I would disagree that if you are a "extension of contractor" that you may not speak with homeowner, actually you can. It's what you say and how you act that is important, we at Boss Up try to help and eliminate middlemen to all clients. As for flat vs percentage, the need to focus on larger files, add fluff is increased, with flat a claim of any cost is dealt with the same respect. I think more on this topic to educate all of us is needed in the industry as we all want to make it better! Hats off Dmitry.
i think it's just as easily justified to charge a % of the claim - look at it from the "work" side.
The larger the claim, the more "Complexity and/or Coordination" (Hint-Hint there for O&P) the claim will entail.
This means more trades, more subs, more paperwork, more back-and-forth a possibility 5x the payout timeline from the carrier vs. a simple "cost-incurred" tarp job. Spend More Time and Energy and Resources on a Larger Claim = Get Paid More.
EG: If i paint your front door with Walmart blue vs. matching the ruby ring color that your wife wears which takes me weeks of research, 9 colors to blend and a custom paintbrush made of monkey hair to apply it with - should I get paid the same?
First, UPPA is unconstitutional.
Next, Steve Badger's conflict of interest argument is horrible. He uses it to justify UPPA as well. Every business and industry has the exact same "conflict of interest". He has a "conflict of interest" when working for and billing hours to insurance companies.
More importantly, Insurance Carriers employing and controlling Adjusters is the biggest conflict of interest in the industry. They have every interest in minimizing claim liability and losses.
If he wants to push this nonsense, we should have third party state-licensed adjusters that are randomly assigned to different claims. He basically has to advocate price controls of all industries to ultimately be ideologically consistent with his "conflict" argument.
What Roofing Insights has done in this explanation video for the industry is to clearly denote the need for contractors to turn to their legal counsels and ask for a written legal letter of opinion (LLO) for how they manage and handle that part of their business because exactly as Dmitry says, it is not possible for Roofing Insights to do the legal research in every state in the Union, that even if they could somehow, could be rendered as a legal letter of opinion EACH contractor would then rest and rely on when someone comes along claiming that they in their respective state is participating in or collaborating on UPPA, when what may be inferred in Florida (when statutes language isn't very well defined or goes through as many changes as it has in the last few years), may not be the case at all in Arkansas, but may mean everything for a contractor in Pennsylvania.
A lot to unpack here🤠
Firstly we should allow the free market to dictate how supplement companies should charge. Even if 99% decided to have a union brain and charge a contingency fee there will always be a company that will undercut the market and do it for a reasonable flat fee and fill that hole in the market.
Do your research on who you're hiring for a contractor. I can't imagine coming across a GC that can't write an estimate or at least put together bids in order to get the value of the loss. But if said contractor must hire a supplement company that's charging a contingency fee how could the supplement company enforce that? If anything I would understand a PA using an estimate company to write the estimate on the front end because when you get licensed to be a PA it doesn't come with a crash construction course 😂 you're just an expert on policy and how to get coverage to cover the eniterity of the loss.
How can you inflate a claim? The IC has all the power. Item 1. Yes Item 2. No Item 3. No Item 4. No It shouldn't be this difficult. If they pay you for work. And you don't complete that work. That should be the Issue.
Love the common sense brother
Because it is difficult... Most homeowners have no idea how crooked, deceiving, and cheap their carrier really is.
Now if the carrier's desk adjuster had ever been on a roof, knew the basic components of a roof, and actually did a decent job "estimating or adjusting" then no, PA's wouldn't have a job and most attorneys would also practice elsewhere, but the carriers prey on the inexperienced homeowner and in my state of FL - they "bank" on the loss of Atty Fees and Costs can be recouped knowing most h/owners haven't the time or money to sue them when they're paying these costs from claim proceeds..
Not an issue, the carrier fulfilled their duty of indemnifying for the loss, whatever the homeowner wants to do afterwards is up to the mortgage and the owner.
Short and to the point Richard. As we mentioned, a solid and precise estimate is 80% of the effort. Following up with carriers should not be that complicated and painful if they were more responsive to the parties involved; this frustrates and wastes so much time on the contractor’s end that they would rather pay a supplemental company to help them ease the pain.
Steve only focuses on the horrible examples in this space. We don't "pump up" our estimates. We write what is going to be installed by the roofer and usually because the adjuster missed it. Pumping these things up is a waste of time and money for everyone involved. You don't come out ahead in the end.
Has Steve ever taken a lawsuit on a contingency basis?
Comment what you think! Read all comments!
So in Florida preparing documentation provided to insurance companies is considered UPPA
No, that's not was this video inferred or meant IMO.