Adjusting & Being Involved in Roofing Industry a No-No!

Roofguy Said:

Everything else you said is wrong

Ok- in plain English the law says:

1. A licensed insurance adjuster can not work for an insurance company as an adjuster relating roof damage AND be in the roofing business, and 2. A roofing contractor can not act as an adjustor or advertise to adjust claims on property he might roof.

That's what I said and it ain't wrong.

Now, why did you want a license?

natty Said:

Roofguy Said: Natty, its all there. Read my post again.

I have read all of your posts and still dont get it. Why not take the adjusters exam? It would be a mark of knowledge. The law does not say a licensed adjuster can not also be in the roofing business. They just can not do both at the same time.

Were you hoping to use that license as a way to deceive a property owner? Just how were you hoping to use that license?

Sigh. Yes, I was hoping to use my adjusting license to deceive people. Drats, you have foiled my plan. Damn you! I intended to make a lot of money screwing people with the cover that my adjusting license would have provided, and now you have ruined that.

Everything else you said is wrong, and frankly, I just don't have time to type out a response to your question when you're just flat out wrong about what Texas adjusters can and can't do. Go research that much first, and when you grasp what the new law passed in August allows...

Roofguy Said: Natty, its all there. Read my post again.

I have read all of your posts and still don't get it. Why not take the adjusters exam? It would be a mark of knowledge. The law does not say a licensed adjuster can not also be in the roofing business. They just can not do both at the same time.

Were you hoping to use that license as a way to deceive a property owner? Just how were you hoping to use that license?

Natty, it's all there. Read my post again.

Roofguy Said:

I would say that I have made insurance companies pay well over $10 million more than they wanted to over the years.

Man, you must be rolling in the dough- I am not impressed.

I guess if this law was not there, you could have gotten licensed as an adjuster and still owned a roofing company and be rolling in even more dough?

Your claims are contradictory as to what you say was the intent of the law- to protect insurance company's profits.

natty Said:

Roofguy Said:

Its a BS law, promulgated by lobbyists protecting ins carriers profit margins.

But it is not protecting anything other than creating another level of bureaucracy called the public adjuster.

An independent adjuster is more likely to total a marginal claim simply because he doesnt want to have to meet with roofing contractors or public adjusters.

Adjusters are more likely to pay what is owed if a roofer is looking over their shoulder. Example: Welch ISD in Texas: The adjuster paid $3,500 for flashing repair after hail. I told the Supt to get him back out as the whole roof had very obvious damage. The adjuster came back out and in 10 minutes with me agreed to pay $60,000. He knew the damage was there he was just going to try to not pay it.

Post ISD: $70,000.

Lamesa ISD: $120,000

Spur ISD: $65,000

Majestic Mfg: $312,000

Fort Worth Shopping Center: $456,000

Plano Shopping Center: $250,000

Etc., etc., etc......

I would say that I have made insurance companies pay well over $10 million more than they wanted to over the years. Every one of them was a legitimate claim that they wanted to deny or underpay.

Roofguy Said:

Its a BS law, promulgated by lobbyists protecting ins carriers profit margins.

But it is not protecting anything other than creating another level of bureaucracy called the "public adjuster".

An independent adjuster is more likely to total a marginal claim simply because he doesn't want to have to meet with roofing contractors or public adjusters.

No, the new law does not allow a roofer to work with an adjuster except under limited circumstances.

It's a BS law, promulgated by lobbyists protecting ins carriers' profit margins. But it is what it is.

twill59 Said:

A good roof

Ha! Property owners don't have a clue as to what is a good roof. All they know is whether or not it leaks. Only a handful of roofers know- maybe. If the insurance company is going to pay for a new roof, they will take it. And if the CONtractor offers to cover the deductible, so much better.

Roofguy Said:

It will change a lot of things.

Like what will it change other than play some word games like I pointed out earlier? Before, a roofing contractor would advertise that they would deal with the insurance company on behalf of the property owner. Now, they just advertise that they will deal with the insurance company's adjuster on behalf of the property owner.

Or, the insurance adjuster would recommend certain roofing contractors or take a roofing contractor along for his professional opinion on the damage. Now, I guess the insurance adjuster still recommends certain contractors then takes a kickback under the table.

I still don't understand what the law changes.

natty Said:

twill59 Said:

No. I am saying this might cause the owner to look for viable solutions instead of getting sucked into the Free Roof Syndrome

What could be more viable than a free roof?

A good roof

Natty, what it means that those running roofing websites and selling roofing products and/or services, are breaking the law if they're also adjusting.

The person I spoke to at the TDI was very clear about that - he said it isn't widely known but they are enforcing it more and more. Heck, I called 2 insurance schools and they didn't even know about the new law yet.

It will change a lot of things.

twill59 Said:

No. I am saying this might cause the owner to look for viable solutions instead of getting sucked into the Free Roof Syndrome

What could be more viable than a "free roof"?

"Are you saying the building owner would rather pay for a repair than get a free roof?"

No. I am saying this might cause the owner to look for viable solutions instead of getting sucked into the Free Roof Syndrome

twill59 Said: The way I would hope this works out, a building owner would seek out reputable repair bids before accepting the Ins. Co. / Restoration Contractor settlements, instead of what we have now.....

Are you saying the building owner would rather pay for a repair than get a free roof?

I am struggling to understand how this law changes anything. Instead of a storm chaser claiming "licensed adjusters on staff" they will now say "former licensed insurance adjuster on staff". Or, instead of claiming "we will work with your insurance company on your claim" they will now say "we will work with your insurance company's adjuster on your claim".

The storm chasers' business model is despicable, has no honor, and has ruined the roofing business for anyone who has pride in their work.