Tag Archives: Insurance policy

The Cheap Missouri Policy Problem: Why a Chapter 380 Insurance Company Isn’t the Same Bargain It Looks Like

June 11, 2026 By in Property Insurance Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

Hoping for the insurance coverage at a cheaper price.

Imagine you need a prescription medication. You can buy it from a licensed pharmacy down the street in Missouri, where a pharmacist checks the dose, the drug is FDA-regulated, the supply chain is inspected, and someone is accountable if the pill in the bottle isn’t what the label says. Or you can buy the “same” medication from an unregulated website for a fraction of the price — no pharmacist, no inspection, no guarantee of what’s actually inside the capsule, and no one to answer to if it does nothing when you finally need it.

Most people understand instinctively why the second option is cheaper. It isn’t cheaper because someone found a clever efficiency. It’s cheaper because the things that cost money — oversight, accountability, a regulator standing behind the product — have been stripped away. You’re not buying the same thing at a discount. You’re buying a thing that looks the same right up until the moment it has to perform.

Property insurance in Missouri has a version of this exact problem, and almost no consumer knows it exists. It comes down to two different chapters of Missouri law: Chapter 375 and Chapter 380.

Two Kinds of “Insurance Company” Under Missouri Law

When most people think of an insurance company, they’re picturing a Chapter 375 insurer. Chapter 375 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri is literally titled “Provisions Applicable to All Insurance Companies,” and it is the body of law that governs the carriers you’ve heard of. A Chapter 375 company is subject to the full regulatory apparatus of the Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance (MDCI): solvency oversight, market-conduct examinations, rate and form review, and — critically for anyone who ever has to file a claim — the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, found at sections 375.1000 through 375.1018.

Chapter 380 is a different animal. It governs “County, Town and Farmers’ Mutual Property Insurance Companies” — Missouri’s small, member-owned mutuals, many of them rooted in rural and small-town communities. The chapter splits them into two groups: “Missouri mutual insurance companies” (sections 380.011 to 380.151) and the larger “extended Missouri mutual insurance companies” (sections 380.201 to 380.591). These companies have served Missouri farmers and homeowners for generations, and many of them treat their members well. This is not an argument that every Chapter 380 mutual mistreats policyholders. It’s an argument about what recourse you have when one does.

Because here is the part the brochure doesn’t mention: a Chapter 380 company is, by statute, exempt from most of the insurance laws that apply to everyone else.

The Exemption That Changes Everything

Two short statutes do the heavy lifting.

Section 380.031 says that a Missouri mutual operating under sections 380.011 to 380.151 “shall be exempt from all provisions of the insurance laws of this state,” and that no later-enacted insurance law applies to it unless that law expressly declares that it applies to such companies.

Section 380.511 says essentially the same thing for the larger extended Missouri mutuals operating under sections 380.201 to 380.591: they are exempt from the other insurance laws of the state except where a statute is “specifically made applicable,” and no future law reaches them unless it expressly says so.

Read those two sentences again, because they are the whole ballgame. The default is exemption. For a regulation to bind a Chapter 380 company, the Legislature has to have specifically named it. And in 2024, the Legislature reinforced this structure with the “Protecting Missouri’s Mutual Insurance Companies Act” (section 380.621), which frames Chapter 380 as the controlling authority over these companies.

So the question becomes simple and consequential: Does the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act expressly declare that it applies to Chapter 380 companies? It does not. The claims-practices regime that protects every Chapter 375 policyholder in Missouri — the rules that tell a carrier how it must behave when you file a claim — does not reach down into Chapter 380.

That is the unregulated online pharmacy. The policy looks like insurance. It is priced like insurance, only cheaper. And the claims process behind it is operating without the guardrails that make the regulated version trustworthy.

What a Missouri Regulated Insurer Is Held To — and an Unregulated One Isn’t

This is not abstract. Missouri law spells out, item by item, the claims-handling conduct that a Chapter 375 insurer is prohibited from engaging in. Section 375.1007 lists fifteen specific “improper claims practices.” Every one of these is a standard a regulated carrier can be held accountable to before the MDCI. For a Chapter 380 company, this list is, as a matter of administrative enforcement, simply not in force.

Here is what a regulated insurer answers for and an unregulated one does not:

  1. Misrepresenting to claimants relevant facts or policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue.
  2. Failing to acknowledge pertinent claim communications with reasonable promptness.
  3. Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and settlement of claims.
  4. Not attempting in good faith to make a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement once liability has become reasonably clear.
  5. Compelling insureds to file suit to recover what they’re owed by offering substantially less than what they ultimately recover in court.
  6. Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation.
  7. Failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof-of-loss statements are completed and submitted.
  8. Trying to settle a claim for less than a reasonable person would expect based on the insurer’s own advertising material.
  9. Attempting to settle on the basis of an application that was materially altered without the insured’s knowledge or consent.
  10. Making a claim payment without identifying the coverage under which it’s being paid.
  11. Unreasonably delaying investigation or payment by demanding both a formal proof of loss and duplicative subsequent verification of the same information.
  12. Failing, on a denial or a lowball compromise offer, to promptly provide a reasonable and accurate explanation of the basis for the action.
  13. Failing to provide the forms necessary to present a claim within fifteen days of a request.
  14. Failing to ensure that repairs by a repairer the insurer owns or requires you to use are done in a workmanlike manner.
  15. Failing to promptly settle a claim where liability is clear under one part of the policy in order to influence settlement under another part.

Look closely at that list, because it is a catalog of exactly the things policyholders complain about most: the carrier that goes silent for weeks, the denial letter with no real explanation, the offer so low it’s designed to make you give up, the demand for the same paperwork three times to run out the clock, the “we’ll pay this if you drop that.” Against a Chapter 375 insurer, every one of those behaviors is a defined violation with a regulator behind it. Against a Chapter 380 company, that enforcement framework — and the related prompt-payment and acknowledgment timelines built on it through MDCI’s regulations at 20 CSR 100-1 — generally does not apply.

“But Can’t I Still Sue?”

This is the fair question, and the honest answer is: maybe, but it’s a different and lonelier road.

Missouri’s vexatious-refusal-to-pay statute, section 375.420, lets a policyholder recover a penalty and attorney’s fees when an insurer refuses to pay without reasonable cause. Whether and how that judicial remedy reaches a particular Chapter 380 mutual is a genuinely contestable legal question — one that belongs with coverage counsel, not a public adjuster, and not a blog post. But notice what that remedy is: it’s a lawsuit. It’s you, hiring a lawyer, financing litigation, and proving bad faith to a judge or jury, possibly years after your roof caved in.

That is precisely the difference between the regulated pharmacy and the website. With a Chapter 375 carrier, there’s a regulator whose job is to police claims conduct before you ever get to a courthouse, and a defined list of practices the carrier can be cited for. With a Chapter 380 company, the administrative safety net is mostly gone, and your fallback is to go to court on your own dime to enforce rights the regulator would otherwise have helped protect. Cheaper premium, costlier remedy.

Cheap for an Undesirable Reason

I’ll say plainly what I tell people who call my office: a lower premium is not automatically a better deal, and in insurance it can be the opposite. Price reflects what you’re actually buying. When a property policy is meaningfully cheaper than the regulated competition, the responsible thing to do is ask why — and “we’re exempt from the claims-handling rules everyone else has to follow” is a very different answer than “we found a way to operate more efficiently.”

The medicine you buy from the unregulated website is cheaper because nobody is checking what’s in it. You discover the difference at the worst possible moment — when you actually need it to work. A Chapter 380 policy can be the same trade. The day you find out which kind of company you bought from is the day a tornado takes your roof off, and that is the worst possible day to learn that the claims process behind your policy was never regulated in the first place.

Before you buy — or renew — find out which chapter your insurer is organized under. Ask the agent directly: “Is this company licensed under Chapter 375 or Chapter 380?” If it’s Chapter 380, that’s not a reason to panic, but it is a reason to understand that the consumer protections you assumed were standing behind your policy may not be there. Read what you’re actually buying. Cheap is not free, and in insurance, you usually pay the difference exactly when you can least afford to.

📞 314-803-2167
🌐 missouripublicadjuster.org

James H. Bushart is a Missouri-licensed public adjuster and Senior Claims Law Associate (SCLA). This article is general information about Missouri insurance regulation, not legal advice. A public adjuster represents policyholders in the valuation and settlement of property claims; questions about whether a specific statutory remedy applies to a specific company or policy should be directed to qualified coverage counsel. Statutory citations are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri as currently published by the Missouri Revisor of Statutes.

Mistakes To Avoid When Filing an Insurance Claim

March 17, 2023 By in General Home Issues, Home Owner Insurance Issues, Property Insurance Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

 

James H. Bushart, Public Adjuster LLC

 

Insurance claims for property damage can be a complicated process and avoiding mistakes can be a challenge. It requires proper documentation and timely submission of relevant paperwork. Any mistake in filing the claim could result in delayed or denied coverage, leaving the policyholder to bear the entire cost of the damage. Therefore, it is essential to understand the do’s and don’ts of filing an insurance claim for property damage and to know when to get help. In this essay, we will discuss the mistakes that policyholders should avoid when filing an insurance claim for property damage.

Failing to Document the Damage:

The first and most common mistake that policyholders make is failing to document the damage properly. It is essential to take pictures and videos of the damaged property as soon as possible after the incident occurs. This documentation will serve as evidence for the insurance company to determine the extent of the damage and the amount of coverage required. Without proper documentation, it can be challenging to prove the damage, and the insurance company may deny the claim. 

Photographs or video of the hailstones that struck the property, for example, are valuable evidence since some weather reports might report the nearest hailstorm to have been miles away on the date of loss.  Photographs of interior water damage taken before clean-up measures began help preserve evidence of fresh damage.  Proving your claim is YOUR responsibility.  Leave it up to the insurance company to prove it for you and you are likely to be disappointed in the result of their half-hearted efforts.

 

Waiting Too Long to File the Claim:

Another common mistake that policyholders make is waiting too long to file the claim. It is crucial to report the damage to the insurance company as soon as possible after the incident occurs. Most insurance policies have a specific timeframe within which the policyholder must report the damage. Failing to report the damage within this timeframe could result in a denied claim. Additionally, waiting too long to file the claim could result in delays in the claims process, which could cause further damage to the property.

Failing to Provide Accurate Information:

When filing an insurance claim for property damage, it is essential to provide accurate and detailed information about the incident. This includes the date and time of the incident, the cause of the damage, and the extent of the damage. Providing inaccurate or incomplete information could result in delays or denials of the claim. Additionally, it could result in the policyholder being accused of insurance fraud, which could result in legal consequences.

Not Reviewing the Insurance Policy:

Before filing an insurance claim for property damage, it is essential to review the insurance policy to understand the coverage and exclusions. Many policyholders make the mistake of assuming that their insurance policy covers all types of damage, only to realize later that the damage is excluded from the policy. Therefore, it is essential to review the policy and understand the coverage and exclusions before filing the claim.  Your insurance policy is a contract worth hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of dollars.  READ IT.

Attempting to Repair the Damage Before Filing the Claim:

Some policyholders make the mistake of attempting to repair the damage before filing the claim. It is essential to notify the insurance company before making any repairs to the property. The insurance company will likely send a claims adjuster to assess the damage and determine the amount of coverage required. Failing to notify the insurance company before making repairs could result in a denied claim, as the insurance company will not have the opportunity to assess the damage.

Failing to Mitigate Further Damage:

When property damage occurs, it is essential to take steps to mitigate further damage. This includes taking steps to prevent water damage or securing the property from further damage. Failing to take steps to mitigate further damage could result in a denied claim, as the insurance company may view the policyholder as negligent in protecting the property.

Not Understanding the Claims Process:

Filing an insurance claim for property damage can be a complicated process. It is essential to understand the claims process and follow the guidelines provided by the insurance company. Failure to understand the claims process could result in delays or denials of the claim.  If you need help with this, contact a licensed public adjuster or attorney for advice or assistance.

Not Following Up on the Claim:

After filing an insurance claim for property damage, it is essential to follow up with the insurance company regularly. This includes following up on the status of the claim and providing any additional documentation required. 

Not Seeking Assistance from Unbiased Sources:

When you find your insurance provider putting more effort into denying your claim than paying it or you feel that you are getting unfair resistance or treatment, consult a licensed public adjuster or an attorney to assist you.

How NOT to Insure an Older Commercial Building

July 27, 2021 By in Property Insurance Tags: , , , 3 Comments

commercial building

It is likely that your older building complied with all applicable building codes when it was originally constructed. However, unless it has undergone major renovations or upgrades since then, it probably does not meet current building standards — and is generally not required to until significant restoration or renovation work becomes necessary.
What many commercial property owners do not realize is that standard property insurance policies often contain an exclusion that denies coverage for the additional costs of complying with current building codes and local ordinances after a loss.
For example, if lightning strikes the building and damages only a small portion of the original electrical system, local building codes may require a complete rewiring of the entire building to meet today’s standards. In that case, the insurance company would typically pay only for repairing the damaged section and leave you responsible for the much more expensive code-upgrade work.
If you own a commercial building that is twenty years old or older, I strongly recommend speaking with your insurance agent or broker. They can determine whether your policy already includes — or whether you should add — an endorsement for Ordinance or Law Coverage (also known as code upgrade coverage). This protection can help shield you from significant out-of-pocket expenses following a covered loss.

Is Your Property Fully Insured?

July 14, 2021 By in Property Insurance Tags: , , Leave a comment

 

 

After considering the adversarial posture of an insurance company toward its policyholder in the event of a claim and assuming the best – that you would be successful in recovering the most that your policy provides to restore your property after a catastrophic loss – did you buy enough insurance to actually restore your property?

Some people will negotiate a terrific deal when purchasing a commercial building or residential dwelling and then will insure that building for the amount of money they paid for it.  The mortgage lender is certainly happy with that amount of insurance for it fully protects their financial investment, but is the market value of a structure sufficient to rebuild it if it were destroyed?  Most likely, it would be significantly less, and it is probably not your plan after a major loss to simply pay off your loan, remove the rubble at your own expense, and live or conduct business on an empty lot.

Even before the current exponential increase in costs for building materials, the market value of a structure did not reflect the cost of replacing all or most of it which, in the event of a major fire or storm, would be the purpose of an insurance policy.

A general contractor or builder in your immediate area will be able to tell you what an average cost per square foot would be to replace all or most of your building today if it were significantly damaged.  Take that cost and multiply it by the square footage of the building you are insuring and then add a few dollars for next year’s inflation.  This will tell you whether or not your home or business structure is insured for a sufficient amount of money.

Until such time the costs of building materials begin to stabilize, this is probably something that you want to do prior to your renewal each year.

 

The Insurance Company’s Adjuster and Your Claim

July 4, 2021 By in Property Insurance Tags: , , , 2 Comments

The insurance company adjuster and your claim

Successfully navigating through the insurance claims process can be challenging for a home or business owner who has suffered loss or damage to their property. Knowing the process and its boundaries and setting reasonable expectations will play a key role in achieving success with the minimum amount of frustration. Knowing what to expect (and what not to expect) from your insurance company’s adjuster is important.

Once an insurance carrier has been notified that a loss has occurred to the property that it insures, the insurer will assign one of its employees or an independent adjuster to investigate and gather information about the claim.

Many policyholders begin this process under the mistaken impression that the adjuster’s job is to assist the policyholder with their claim, but quickly learn that this is not true. It is the burden of the policyholder (not the insurance company’s adjuster) to prove that his loss was caused by a covered peril. The adjuster assigned to the claim is tasked to protect the rights and interests of the insurance carrier and assist the carrier in obtaining and presenting evidence of a policy’s exclusion when it exists.

While it is the burden of the policyholder to prove his loss was caused by a covered peril, it is the burden of the insurance carrier to prove that coverage is excluded under the policy. Presumably, both sides are prepared or preparing to meet their burdens of proof. How does the insurance company’s adjuster go about doing this for his employer?

First, he confirms that the damaged property is the property described in the policy and was at the location described in the policy. If you are claiming an item that you did not insure, or if the insured item was not on the insured property when it was damaged, you might not have a valid claim.

Next, he confirms that the loss occurred during the time period when the policy was in effect. If your roof was damaged by hail and the last hailstorm in your area occurred two months prior to the beginning of your coverage, his job is to discover and record that fact.

He will then determine whether the loss was caused by a peril covered by your policy. There are many causes for damage that are specifically excluded from an insurance policy.

The adjuster will then determine the extent of the ownership interest of the policyholder in the insured property and the extent of the ownership interest of others in the insured property. If the policyholder shares ownership of the property with others, how much of the damage is his loss and how much might be shared with others?

He will investigate to confirm that the policyholder did not commit fraud or material misrepresentation to procure the insurance policy. If the policyholder withheld material information in his application used to determine risk, for example, coverage under the policy may be rescinded.

The adjuster will confirm whether the premises were occupied as permitted or required by the policy. Certain policies negate coverage for loss when the property had been vacant for more than 60 days during the term of the policy.

He will also confirm that, at the time of the loss, there were no conditions that would cause suspension of the coverage.

This is the investigation that the adjuster conducts at the same time he is taking his measurements and photographs of the damage to determine the value of the loss, should it be paid. These are the purposes behind his questions as he conducts his investigation to first determine IF the insurance company will pay before determining how much money the carrier might offer.

It is imperative and required by the insurance contract that the policyholder fully cooperate with this investigation and be precise, accurate, and truthful when responding to these inquiries. Fraud and/or misrepresentation of the smallest degree can result in complete denial of the entire claim.

When the adjuster believes that there is a possibility of the existence of an exclusion to the peril that you have reported a loss from, he is likely to seek the assistance of someone the carrier can use as an expert (should you sue) to support their use of that exclusion. Therefore, the carrier will hire an engineer or other expert to look at the damage. Policyholders who disagree with the carrier’s decision regarding coverage of their claim and do not understand how and why insurance companies use experts will sometimes demand on their own that the insurer pays for an engineer to evaluate the damage that they believe should be paid. In doing so, they are unwittingly providing the carrier with ammunition to use against them instead of meeting their own burden to prove their loss – since the insurance company’s engineer is not going to be paid by the carrier to assist the policyholder to defend against them.

Understand the process, be fully prepared to prove that your loss or damage was caused by a covered peril when you file your claim and seek the advice of an attorney or public adjuster if you are not fully confident in handling the claim on your own or at the first sign of trouble with your insurance carrier.

 

Do You Become the Enemy When You File an Insurance Claim?

June 19, 2021 By in Home Owner Insurance Issues Tags: , , , 1 Comment

Enemy for filing a claim

   “I have paid my premiums on time for twenty years and have never filed a claim.  Now, it is difficult for me to tell who has caused me more damage — the storm or my insurance carrier.”

     The above exclamation, or words like it, is something that I hear daily from Missourians who have had the misfortune of needing to file an insurance claim for damage to their homes and businesses.  Do you really become “the enemy” of your insurance carrier when you file a claim?  Do they really consider you more as an adversary than a customer?  

     I received an email today from an attorney representing an insurance carrier from out of state and who sells insurance policies in Missouri who provided a clear and convincing answer to those questions.

     My client, a commercial business, had incurred extensive and obvious hail damage to multiple buildings and filed an insurance claim.  Their insurance company hired an independent adjustment firm to inspect the damage who reported their observations to the carrier.  The carrier, after receiving their report and photographs, decided to hire an engineer who regularly assists insurance carriers in denying coverage for hail damage to properties in Missouri.

     With the hail damage being as obvious as it was, there was no legitimate reason to have an engineer look at the same dents, gouges, and tears that their independent adjuster had just seen and photographed.  I suspected that the independent adjuster had recommended that the claim be paid against the carrier’s wishes, and I requested a copy of his report.  Insurance companies will share their reports when their report supports a claim denial.  For some reason, the carrier did not want to share this one and I was suspicious of their intention.

     When I submitted a formal written request for a copy of the report from their independent adjuster that I believed supported my client’s claim for damages, I received a letter from the carrier’s attorney in response that confirmed my suspicions.  In part, it read as follows:

     “Under Missouri law, the relationship between an insured and the insurer with regard to first-party claims becomes adversarial when a claim is made on the policy.  Therefore, the insurer is entitled to assert work product privileges to prevent access to materials found in the claim or investigative file.”

     Because my client had filed a claim, he became an “adversary” to his insurance carrier and was not entitled to see documents in his file that might support his claim.  In return for his annual premiums exceeding $80,000.00 per year, this is what his money bought for him.  An adversarial relationship.

     Of course, we’re suing.  Soon, that report and all the other documents in the file will be in the hands of his attorney.  He will recover all the money owed to him by his insurance carrier along with (most likely) punitive damages and his attorney fees.  He is, indeed, an “adversary” to his insurance company – but not because he filed a claim.  Rather, it was the insurance carrier that decided to vexatiously withhold money that was due to him under his contract rather than to pay him what he was entitled to.  That action taken by them, and not their claim, is what made him an adversary … and a worthy one, at that.

Fighting the Good Fight

May 5, 2021 By in Home Owner Insurance Issues, Property Insurance Tags: , , , , , , Leave a comment
Fighting the good fight

Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on Pexels.com

 

     I recently read a touching and inspiring tribute written by an attorney who advocates for policyholders and who had recently lost a valuable partner and fellow advocate to cancer.  Together, they would fight the good fight. There are not enough fighters like them in this arena, and in his tribute to his partner, he described her drive and enthusiasm for battling with insurance companies on behalf of their clients.

     Being one who shares in the same fight (though not at such grand of a scale), I felt a great sense of personal loss.  Even though I did not know her, personally, I know her heart and I have shared similar pain with the clients who had purchased insurance for peace of mind but found, when disaster came to their door, that this peace was only a temporary illusion.

     Though Missouri law tasks an insurance company to provide prompt and fair assistance to its policyholders in exchange for payment of premiums, minimizing risk, and filing a claim only upon sustaining damage – some insurance companies, to protect their own financial interest, inflict more stress and financial harm upon their policyholders than the destructive event that prompted their claim, and at a time when the policyholder is most vulnerable with the least financial reserve.  Instead of providing the warm professional care and assistance projected by their televised mascots, the policyholder is frequently met with fierce opposition and obstruction intended to exasperate, wear down, and break the resolve of the most committed policyholder defending his own rights under the very insurance policy he bought for “peace of mind”.

     Fighting through a barrage of tactics used by insurance companies to delay, deny, and defend against the policyholder is certainly not an enjoyable experience for either the policyholder or his advocate.  It is, however, something that must be done in order to receive a dollar-for-dollar payment for the incurred loss.  That is the reality that is not shown on friendly and warm television commercials.

     We lost a fighter.  Who will take her place?

 

 

 

 

 

Are the Engineer Reports Purchased By Insurance Companies to Deny Claims Accurate and Truthful?

April 29, 2021 By in Home Owner Insurance Issues, Home Repairs Tags: , , , , , , 4 Comments
engineer report to deny claim

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

     In search of an expert to provide them with a reason to deny a claim, many insurance companies will turn to the engineering profession. 

     There are highly respected and valued professional licensed engineers who design and build bridges and skyscrapers, who safely and efficiently channel waterways through and around large cities, who design and test the durability of aircraft and automobiles, who meet and overcome construction and building challenges around the globe – and then there are those who market themselves to insurance carriers for the purpose of providing written reports for them to use to deny insurance claims for wind and hail damage to homes and businesses.  There is money in it.  Insurance companies will pay them upwards of $2,500.00 per report.  Most of these reports provide little more than boilerplate narratives regarding simple roofing materials and most of them contain little or no scientific or engineering data – but aside from their apparent lack of relevance, how accurate is the information that is provided?

     As a public adjuster representing business and homeowner policyholders with their insurance claims, I read many of these reports and too often find errors, misrepresentations, and ambiguities salted among information intended to present a “scientific” spin on what are usually simple, routine observations that virtually anyone can make.

     Much of what you will find in these reports, sometimes as much as two-thirds or more of the entire report, is a boilerplate filler of generic information that could be (but not always) relevant to their observations.  It looks impressive at first glance, just as it is intended to, but is it even correct?  Not always.

     An engineer in several of his recent reports used by various insurance companies to deny claims includes the following language:  “According to the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA), the lifespan of a roof is 20 years.”  His report was peer-reviewed and stamped by another engineer with his firm – an engineering firm widely used by insurance carriers throughout the country. This claim by the engineer caught my attention because he was writing about a certain type of roofing material that carried a 30-year warranty and, as most people familiar with roofing materials know, various roofing materials have various lifespans – some as high as over 50 years.  

     I did not believe that the National Roofing Contractor’s Association would be so uninformed as to publish what he claimed they did, so I wrote to them and inquired as to where I could find the information from them that this engineer was quoting in his report used to support a denial of a cliam.  The Vice President of Technical Services for the NRCA responded to me, as follows:  “The 20-year figure is not from the NRCA.  Lifespans vary greatly.”  Thus, the engineer was not only wrong in his peer-reviewed statement of fact regarding the lifespan of a roof, but he also misrepresented the source for his errant facts.  

     Some engineers will provide comments and conclusions about the density or speed of hailstones as being less than required to damage roofing material and provide absolutely no information as to how they were able to measure the density or speed of the hailstone that melted away months or years before their observation.  We are to simply take their word for it, like the quotations from the NRCA, perhaps.

     The engineer paid by the insurance company might use ambiguous language that appears to say something but doesn’t.  For instance, did the engineer say that large hailstones did not strike your roof, or did he simply say that he did not observe evidence of large hail strikes?  There is a difference.  Could there be evidence that he did not “see”, such as bruised indentations on weathered asphalt composite material that is soft to the touch?  Did he say this, or did he leave it to the insurance company to use in the manner of their own choosing?

     Insurance carriers, being corporations who have a fiduciary duty to protect the financial interests of their shareholders as well as a contractual duty to fulfill their promises to their policyholders, will often find this conflict of interest resulting in their wrongful actions of grossly underpaying or wrongfully denying their policyholders’ claims.   The misuse of engineer reports is one of the ways they do this.

     Often, insurance companies will knowingly allow the engineer’s errant attempts to interject policy interpretations into his report to be used to deny a policyholder’s claim.  I have personally reversed an attempt by an insurer to deny an insurance claim because the engineer reported that the damage to the roof “could not be seen from the ground” when there was nothing in the policy to exclude damage for that reason, as one of many examples.  

     An expert witness in court must present his credentials, provide his testimony under oath, and be subjected to cross-examination, but insurance companies present biased hired guns as experts in the claims process and deprive vulnerable policyholders of necessary funds to restore their homes and businesses, with impunity.

     The advice to not believe everything you read should be extended to engineer reports paid for by your insurance company to deny your insurance claim.  Have them closely reviewed by your own expert for accuracy, relevancy, and truth before accepting that your claim should be denied as a result of an engineer’s report.  Whatever you do, do NOT let the insurance company’s engineer be the final word on the validity of your claim.

The Need for a Personal Contents Inventory

April 18, 2021 By in Property Insurance Tags: , , , , ,
Need for a personal content inventory

Sifting through the ashes to write an inventory of personal contents to provide to your insurance company can be stressful.

 

The most cumbersome task required of a homeowner by their insurance company when filing a claim after a catastrophic fire or tornado loss is the preparation of a personal contents inventory. 

Test yourself right now.  Close your eyes and make a mental list of everything in the room you are in … then open your eyes and marvel at all you failed to include in your list. Think of doing this for every item in your home after a fire, tornado, or other tragic events then add to this overwhelming task your insurance carrier’s request that you also add to each item on your list the date you purchased it, its manufacturer, price, and more.

It’s hard.  It’s expensive to be wrong.  It seems unfair.  It will make you angry to be required to perform this task and it will upset you to be forced to revisit your loss and relive this tragedy each time you return to the task.  I’ve seen many of my clients experience this anguish repeatedly.

There is something you can do TODAY, however, that will help you to minimize this daunting effort should you ever be faced with such loss.  That something is to create and maintain your inventory right NOW.  Remembering all of your items can make the difference of thousands of dollars in your insurance claim.  Imagine being paid a thousand dollars per minute to file your claim.

The Missouri Department of Insurance provides a handy booklet you can download to get started, but I recommend that any written list of your belongings you create be supplemented with a gallery of photographs and videos.  When photographing your items for your inventory, including photographs of the data plates that record the serial numbers, manufacturer, and manufacturing date.  A digital recording of a slow span of a room, a drawer, a box of mementos, tools, and cupboards will assist you and your insurance company, as well.  There is also a phone app. 

It is important to keep your inventory and video/photographic record of your belongings in a safe place other than in your home where they could be destroyed along with the recorded belongings.  Keep it up to date when items are added or removed from the home … and may you never, ever have to use it.

For more information, contact James H. Bushart, Missouri Licensed Public Adjuster.

 

 

This Blog/Web Site is made available by James H. Bushart, Public Adjuster LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the work of a public adjuster, not to provide specific legal advice. The authors and/or site manager make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. By using this blog site you understand that there is no public adjuster/client relationship between you and James H. Bushart, Public Adjuster.  The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state, nor should it be used as a substitute for competent maintenance or repair advice from a qualified contractor licensed to perform work in your state.

Computer Generated Estimates from Insurance Adjusters

March 15, 2019 By in Property Insurance Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

computer generated estimates

 

It may surprise you that the overwhelming majority of insurance adjusters, no matter which insurance company they work for, use the same computer software to generate estimates from which they pay insurance claims.  The corporation that owns and manages the software that creates the computer-generated estimate that your adjuster is using to settle your claim is called Verisk Analytics, Inc.

When you visit this page of the website for Verisk Analytics, Inc., you will see something very interesting about its managers and Board of Directors.  Most of them, including the director who bears the title of “Lead Director,” are from the insurance industry and/or have professional backgrounds in the very closely associated financial investment industry.  Very few, if any, have backgrounds or practical experience in the industries or trades related to performing the restoration work or providing the materials represented in these computer-generated estimates.

This could lead a reasonable person to question whether the computer-generated estimate provided by the insurance adjuster represents the financial interests of the insurance industry managing and producing it … or the interests of the policyholder who is presumably expected to have enough money to fully restore his property from the amount estimated by the software program.

Prudent policyholders, however, will carefully read their policies and discover that their payments from their insurance companies are to be based upon the actual … and not the “estimated” … restoration cost.  They will know that they are not limited to receiving only the insurance adjuster’s home-grown estimate generated by his own industry’s managed computer software program but are entitled, instead, to the amounts that it will actually cost to replace or restore the destroyed or damaged property.

If they don’t know this and settle for what the computer-generated estimate guesses that their payment should be, they are likely to be underpaid for their loss.