Ethics

Homeowner collects $700K from ins. co. to repair his fire damaged "2nd home".

HO lives in another state....Collaborates with a "restoration contractor" in his home state, to establish the $700K claim & settlement.

Through the original "general contractor:, (out of state, may not have even seen the project), hires a local alleged contractor to "supervise" the work, who, in turn hires another local contractor to perform and subcontract the work...All parties paid in cash.

The owner has collected $700K

HO will give original contractor aprx. $400; The project will cost aprx. $200k to complete.

The original GC and the "local" GC will divvy-up aprx $200k....

The HO pockets $300K, then will "short-sell" or let bank forclose on....

This involves two states that have NO contractor licensing, (TEX & Colo.),....GO FIGURE!

WTF????

jimAKAblue Said: I think you guys are all jumping to conclusions without any factual evidence.

All policies are not written the same. I dont see any insurance companies turning over any monies without their checks and balance systems in place. It might be that the insurance company has to write that 700k check no matter what happens. The assertion that the insured MUST replace their property is flat out wrong. The insured can take the money and do whatever they want with their property....and that includes bulldozing it.

Theres not enough facts offered to form a definite opinion. Lets see the contracts. Lets see the small print. After that, well be able to determine if there is insurance fraud or mortgage fraud.

Jim, I've seen it happen a handful of times in my 31 year in the roofing business - it does happen.

I looked at a shopping center roof in ##########, Texas, 325 SQRS standing seam. I found very minimal hail dents, and trust me, I push very hard for the insured to get paid every dime he has coming from the ins company. Well, the insurance agent was a tenant in the shopping center and lo & behold his staff adjuster insisted on paying I think it was around $350/SQR to install GAF Topcoat on the whole roof. Way way more money than the damage justified. Now I'm not saying there was a quid pro quo and that maybe the settlement money also paid some prepaid rent for the agent's office, but I wouldn't be totally shocked to hear that either.

I've seen that kind of thing before, where the agent or adjuster has a relationship with the insured and gets favorable treatment. I've even heard agents admit to me that they "buy new customers" by instructing their staff adjusters to pay on marginal claims in an area where other agents are denying claims so that neighbors begin talking to each other: "Hey, my agent turned me down, but yours paid you for a new roof, I'm switching to your agent."

It happens.

I think you guys are all jumping to conclusions without any factual evidence.

All policies are not written the same. I don't see any insurance companies turning over any monies without their checks and balance systems in place. It might be that the insurance company has to write that 700k check no matter what happens. The assertion that the insured MUST replace their property is flat out wrong. The insured can take the money and do whatever they want with their property....and that includes bulldozing it.

Theres not enough facts offered to form a definite opinion. Lets see the contracts. Lets see the small print. After that, we'll be able to determine if there is insurance fraud or mortgage fraud.

twill59 Said: Wall ST does not have half the crime Main ST has.

There is a company here that strongly advertises their Christian Ethics. I honestly do NOT have a clue what they are talking about.

Ive been saying for years that Americas problems are moral and not financial. Nothing new there TomB.

I tend to avoid companies/owners who wear their religion on their sleeve like they're using it to generate business. But that's just me.

As to the other issue, it's clearly insurance fraud and can land you in prison. That in and of itself is reason enough not to do it. I think insurance companies are inherently crooked, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

That's insurance fraud.

Ok in my years of doing this mind you i have been out of the game for a few years. There are very few morals when it comes to insurance work. Contractors only want to make the highest dollar they can. Now there are several i have had the oppertunity to speak with and well They are by no means the way its supposed to be. Honest living and honest people. I did 3 insurance jobs i live in michigan and well I had 1 lady that i had the numbers pumped up and well did not get the job after i had ink on paper locking me into the home. I turned her in for pocketing the money. Now if anyone here has read an insurance policy it will state in no means can the home owner or renter proffit period from insurance. What happens is well if you ever changed insurance companies your claims follow you. Do you think they will get a policy? Its crystal clear in the policy. Does it happen yes. For that kind of money i would do everything i could to fry them. Well i know thats not the nice thing to do but think of how insurance goes up health, car, and home owners for no reason. Those people that pocket the money and pound the insurance company are the ones that do this to us.

Morals have gone out the windows many years ago. Heck im 35 and have noticed this for years. Look at a high school kids are driving better cars then we are. I understand the give your childern more than you had therory. But think, watch kids. The future in general is in big trouble.

There are many things in this world that have evolved into messes. take for example, the war in Afganistan. This was a cause and effect problem we started in the i think late 70's when they were at war with Russia. We supplied weapons they had alot of deaths since they did not know how to use them. But they won the war. Alot of those people got pist that we did not help like we did everyone else. And well i dont have to say anything else about that. May god let those whom have died in the trade center rest in peaces along with our boys in the 2 wars we are engauged in that have passed away.

But hey we just keep feeding the fire. I know i have gone off subject and i did it for a reason, not to start and political arguement. But to show if you stop and look around how things have changed in general. I have. Since im still healing from my injury i have had the time to think about alot of subjects and look at the pros and cons of most everything i have thought about. As a whole this world is in big trouble. People ripping off each other, killing people for no reason (i live 35 miles from Detriot) I cant even watch the news some days.

What i think i am trying to say is as a whole we have altered something in our lives that have effected others and it basically comes down to that. thats my 2 cents.

"...can legally bulldoze the property and pocket all 700k..."

Let's drag out any homeowner policy and read the fine print. You'll never find that in there, I guarantee it.

It's fraud.

"... has agreed to pay 700k if there is a loss."

Not quite. They have only agreed to pay 700K if there is a 700k loss. The odds of a loss are spread across a wide field of insureds, most of whom will have no losses and some of whom will report legitimate losses. The other policyholders are now going to be making up the difference between the actual loss and the fraudulent claim. The ethical position is that the insurer has a fiduciary responsibility to verify the actual loss and that it was not deliberate. You pay me a 750k premium for a 700k maximum loss and I'll look the other way while you drive your bulldozer anywhere you want. If you burn me for 300k and I can't prove it, I'll just take it from all the other rate-payers next year, one piece from each one. Kind of like a lottery only you have to cheat to win it. I'm probably smart enough to pull off that kind of thing, but I don't want dirty money. No love in it. Just another pie-eating contest.

TomB Said: You & I get screwd....I dont think ther ins. co. has profited $700K from the ins. premiums its collected on the property....

Oh brother!....Theres a typical case-in-point for ya!

Do you think the insurance company wasn't charging the proper annual premiums against that 700k liability?! Do you think they were charging as though their exposure was only 200k?

You & I get "screw'd"....I don't think ther ins. co. has profited $700K from the ins. premiums it's collected on the property....

Oh brother!....There's a typical case-in-point for ya!

Who's getting screwed in the deal?

The insurance company has been taking premiums and has agreed to pay 700k if there is a loss. The homeowner can legally bulldoze the property and pocket all 700k. That's not only legal, but ethical.

The bank requires that the insurance payout goes through them to make the property whole. If it's made whole, they pay out the 700k.

The big question is: how much is owed? If there is enough equity, then the bank wins too.

Wall ST does not have half the crime Main ST has.

There is a company here that strongly advertises their "Christian Ethics". I honestly do NOT have a clue what they are talking about.

I've been saying for years that America's problems are moral and not financial. Nothing new there TomB.