I debated in public at an evaluation conference in Denver with Insurance Attorney Steve Badger on various issues regarding evaluations. I answered a question that if new evidence came to the insured's valued person who showed that the previous payment from the insurance company was more than sufficient and the insurance company clearly overpaid, must the insured's valuer accept a value that is lower than what was previously paid?
This is really my opinion, but I said "yes, if there is evidence or something that comes up and the insured's appointed assessor finds that the amount of the loss is even less than what the carrier paid, it should be the assessor's assessment. & # 39 ;
Now I know that some very knowledgeable readers will say that only the differences are valued and since the insurance company agreed to pay at least the amount shown, the insured's assessor should not value less than that amount, but in the absence of any other agreement says the common assessment clause: 1
If you and I disagree about the value of the property or the size of the "loss" can either demand an assessment of the "loss". you a we competent and impartial appraiser.You and we must notify the other of the selected appraiser within twenty days of the written request for assessment.The two appraisers choose a judge e. If the assessors do not agree on the election of a judge within 15 days, they must request that a judge be chosen by a judge in a court of jurisdiction. The assessors will state the value of the property and the amount of the "loss" separately. If they do not agree, they will hand over their differences to the judge. A decision agreed upon by two will be the assessed value of the property or the amount of the "loss."
As can be seen, the valuers must indicate the amount of the loss. There is nothing to say, "but no less than what the insurance company has paid." It is the assessors' differences that are then handed over to the judge. A hard-working valuer appointed by the insured who is conscientious and ensures that the insurance customer receives a fair price can find information that leads to an honest perception of loss less than what was even previously paid.
To get the amount right so that the insurance customer has full payment, all benefits must be "job one" for everyone in the insurance industry. "Job one" does not mean overpaying the policyholder. But that really does not mean that you think or act in such a way to pay less, as little as possible or shorten the customer is correct, because it is not. Such an attitude does not reflect good faith and violates the public trust that those in the insurance protection industry are ethically obliged to follow.
So what happens when the insurance company claims that executives choose evaluators on the basis of reduced evaluation awards? Is this ethical? I was thinking about these issues due to public documents regarding Citizens Property Insurance's selection of valuers, which a valuer did not choose noted in a letter to Citizens:
We do not know what criteria Citizens uses for "quality" but our other customers use the evaluation results . The quality of our assessments can be seen in the results submitted to Mr. Curtis Hutchinson two years ago (see attached). Of the 130 evaluations conducted by Glenn Carlson and Ken Carman in All Claims, the awards resulted in a 20% increase over what had already been paid ($ 1,890,481.45) when the demand for new money averaged 170% (9,304 $ 846.48). The savings indicate a uniform and high-quality product.
I once used similar evidence to show a general business practice in bad faith against an insurance company. The insurer's customers who showed the document were outraged that they had to fight an appraiser who did not give an honest opinion, but an appraiser motivated them to meet the insurance company's profit target by reducing damages.
Thought for Day
It was not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse races.
1 Johnny Parker. Understanding the insurance clause: A four-step program . 37 U. Tol. L. Rev.931 (2006).