ATTENTION COLORADO ROOFING CONTRACTORS

The Colorado Roofing Association sent me this notice. SUPPORT CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE ROOFING INDUSTRY TODAY Senate Bill 038 has passed out of the Senate and is ready to be heard in House Committee! I posted a link and PDF on it here http://www.rooferscoffeeshop.com/worth_mentioning.asp

Not entirely so, egg.....Some of us may feel contractor licensing would be a more realistic/straight-forward "consumer protection" advancement, rather than further perpetuate the insurance game jibberish/complexities....

I realize a great deal rely on that "game", as thier very livelyhood, so understandably, the passion is going to be there.

Guess I'm going to have to go back and read it all again then. I thought Larry was making sense.

(This discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Colorado has or should have a contract license law. Surely that is a different subject.)

wywoody.... ;)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Bla bla bla bla roofing comtractors bla blaa bla blaw, bla bla. Blank contracts bla bla da bla. Bla Colorado bla bla blablabla Insurance bla.

Sorry my 'bla' key has been sticking on my keyboard. But I made as much sense as Larry.

hey egg, ??? about what? the fodder or the plotter?

???

cannon fodder

The bill doesn't specifically state that a contractor cannot negotiate with the insurance adjuster/in house claim rep on behalf of the customer. It is indeed however, the "shall not act as a public adjuster" that has the same affect. In MN, a bulletin was issued in 2010 by Mn Commerce and MN Doli that attempted to prohibit contractors from negotiating before they backtracked on what they really meant then said, "but if you do act in the capacity of a PA, you may be penalized." I knew the "no negotiating" language would soon after appear as an amendment to the existing MN law that prohibited rebates, paying the deductible, etc. When it did several weeks ago here in MN, it was roundly defeated when a good number of MN contractors who were paying attention spoke up. The bills Chief author Hoppe was quite upset when he realized that what had been presented to him as a consumer protection bill was actually a P&C insurance industry profits protection bill being pushed by the P&C ins industry through their lobbyists.

"What this bill is about - is setting some minimum guidelines for roofing contractors in Colorado to operate under, and to give consumers some level of protection as well. This bill requires that roofing contractors provide a contract that clearly states what materials they will use, what work they will perform, an approximate cost for same, and their contact information."

Insurers calc premium based on future costs. Repair job today that costs $20,000 will cost $25,000 five years down the road. If Ins pays today they save $5,000 off of what they based prem on ($25k). Since one org "advises" all P&C ins what to charge for premium on what based on, all insurance work is "pre-paid". So, todays job is approx $20,000 from insurer A, B, or C that is what all thinking contractors should be charging for the work. Otherwise, ins co is profiteering.

"Blank Contracts"? That's what attorneys call valid contingency agreements when they want to earn a small fee from a client who got paid the $20,000 then decided to attempt to breach and go with the free estimate contractor who doesn't understand how the insurance claims process works.

Those so-called "blank" contracts typically state that if the contractor is unsuccessful in getting the claim paid, they become null and void. Properly explained to a customer, the "contract" is made up of the contingency agreement and the loss report that the customer always has control of. It makes no sense for a contractor to write up and complete a "contract" before the customer knows for sure what the ins co will pay for.

There are some unethical contractors who write up a complete filled in contract with their price and the customer signs having been convinced that the ethically challenged contractor will (guaranteed) get their claim paid. When the ins co denies or underpays, the contractor then demands the customers who signed their contract fulfill the agreement. That's a no-no and a whole different problem. Local contractors who don't understand the process get angry at out of towners who use contingency agreements because they take away alot of work. Instead of bad mouthing the practice and pretending that it is unscrupulous, local guys/gals need to learn how things really work so they can then control their own markets.

"It eliminates the practice of having a homeowner sign a blank contract in a high pressure situation with the roofing contractor promising to give them a new roof for whatever the insurance proceeds are."

That's just ins lobbyist BS. They know that contingency contractors are going to get ins co's to pay more money (what they really owe) than the free estimate guys and they don't like it so they tell politicians to pretend it is a consumer protection issue when it really isn't.

"This bill reiterates the already existing Colorado Statute under which a contractor cannot pay or waive or rebate a property owners deductible as well."

I know of no legitimate contractor who has a problem with that language.

"It allows the contractor to communicate with the insurance company on behalf of the homeowner if necessary - code issues, new plywood, etc."

It does do that but it does not allow (shall not act as a PA) a contractor to do what they do better than anyone else, negotiate on behalf of their customers. The P&C ins industry doesn't want contractors who know what they are doing better than anyone else, know what needs repair and know how much it should cost to be getting involved in that process so they attempt to take away the rights of property owners who pay the premium to choose who they want to assist them and instead, force them to either pay a PA 10% to 15% or trust their ins co to do the right thing and that rarely works out well for the insured's.

I like orcas. I hate sharks.

All contractor licesing attempts east of the CD, that I've been privy to, are typically misdirected/ineffective, and quite franky, a complete waste of time & $.....I can't blame you guys....

ORCA???? lol

How about SHARK? (Self-Help Association of Roofing Kontractors)

I hate acronyms.

To be honest, I share Mike's view. I spend so much in licenses, etc. and the low ballers don't have those burdens. And some that do are such hacks, to borrow a phrse form the Duke, "Well, they needed shooting! So I done it."

I would beg to differ. In Ohio, when it was tried, it was ORCA, or mostly the establishment, that was pushing for it.

As you get bigger, you compete against more sophisticated contractors every day. My resons for being against it have nothing to do with the items you describe.

I think we should do away with traffic laws and HOA's!

I think everyone ought to carry a side-arm around with them...Imagine how polite society would be!

Back to the subject of contractor licensing.....In environments w/o effective licensing the more established operations, and in contrast, the less than desirable/cheaters, (so-to-speak), proliferate....

The established worked hard to get where they're at, and are comfortable with the status quo.....Effective licensing would mean the demise of the crooks, thereby providing added competition for the fat'n sassy types that previously enjoyed relative limitted competition.

BTW;While I realize some states have attempted their versions of contractor licensing, it by no means is automatically effective....I do know for sure; If Colorado implemented similar licensing, as our neighboring states to the west, the amount of "contractors" would reduce by at least 50%. The overall qualty of work would improve...and most importantly, consumer/public image would skyrocket.