# Missouri Jumps on the "No Negotiating" Bandwagon



## larryb (Jul 22, 2010)

If Governor Nixon was really all that concerned about making government more efficient and putting families first he would have studied the bill, removed the negotiation restrictions and then signed it into law. Maybe, they had to pass the law first so we could find out what was in it?

www.iccoa.com

*Missouri Jumps on the "No Negotiating" Bandwagon*
​


----------



## Grumpy (Oct 29, 2008)

What exactly is the "no negotiating" band wagon?


----------



## larryb (Jul 22, 2010)

Grumpy said:


> What exactly is the "no negotiating" band wagon?


Politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, P&C ins co's, Public Adjusters - all who want to prohibit contractors from negotiating (properly pricing at profitable rates) with insured's ins co's to help them to achieve the highest legitimate claim settlements. 

The end result is that insured's - you, me, anyone else who pays ins premiums, are prohibited from authorizing a contractor to advocate on our behalf and instead, forcing us to either hire a PA, an attorney or lay down and let the ins co run us over.


----------



## Grumpy (Oct 29, 2008)

I see a conflict if the contractor is doing the negotiation of interest and appluad th eno negotiations. let the public adjusters do their job and act as a true consultant on behalf of the property owner. Same thing as a roof cunsultant. Too many storm chasers have no interest for the property owner and only have their own interests in mind. Property owners need protection from these wolves! 

Furthermore I have no desire to argue with the insurance company, it's a waste of my time and talent... so if something like this prevents my competitors from doing it, it makes MY job alot easier. I'm all for alot easier!


The only thing that will happen is the stormers will change their structure. instead of being roofing contractors they will rebrand themselves as consultants or public adjusters or what ever fancy title you want to give them. Then they will do the same thing they are doing now. Instead of subbing out the work they will give referrals to 3 subs whom will work for what ever and will give kick backs to the consultant/public adjuster. Actually this is good for the stormer because they will have less liability, well not like they honor their warranty anyways LOL


----------



## larryb (Jul 22, 2010)

Plenty of "wolves" in the storm business just as there are plenty of "wolves" in retail who give away their work, do bad work, hire illegals, etc.

The biggest concern is that the premium payers are prohibited from choosing who to represent them and negotiate on their behalf.

Grumpy's neighbors house gets hit by a severe wind and hail storm. Grumpy's neighbor calls Grumpy for help. Grumpy's neighbor learns that he is prohibited from authorizing Grumpy, who knows best what it costs to complete the repairs, to negotiate the price. Grumpy sees the neighbors loss report and knows the ins co substantially under estimated but, because of the law, Grumpy can't help other than telling the neighbor to fight it. 

Since the law took away the payers right to choose a contractor to represent them and negotiate for them, the neighbor has to pay 10% to 15% to a PA to do what Grumpy could do better, or, hire an expensive attorney, or, trust the insurance company to do the right thing and we all know how that usually goes.

This isn't about stormers vs locals - it's about the Gov telling people what they can or cannot do.


----------



## Grumpy (Oct 29, 2008)

Grumpy's neighbor did call grumpy and hired someone who was offering a free roof because grumpy was asking for $2,000 more than the insurance was willing to pay. True story.




In your story, Grumpy would refer said neighbor to a public adjuster with similiar morals and work ethic. Problem solved. PLUS Grumpy does NOT want to waste his time negotiating with the insurance company any ways, so this is a win win for Grumpy.


There is a conflict of interest when the one adjusting the work will also be installing the work. Most of these guys who "Adjust" or negotiate and will later install the roof are NOT looking out for the customer, only themselves! You and I know this is true. Same deal as a roof consultant who then later wants to install the work. Conflict of interest. Nod difference.


It's a huge problem all across the country. Take away the stormers power I say!


----------



## DFWRoofing (Apr 27, 2010)

I certainly see how and why someone should not be both an adjuster and a contractor. Be one or the other.

But what exactly is the definition of "negotiating"?

Is getting factual questions correct negotiating? ie. the property is how many squares.


----------



## Grumpy (Oct 29, 2008)

Seems to me if you can get 10% and have no liability then it's better to be a PA rather than a roofer. Maybe I'll get one of those licenses. Then I can "Refer"t he job to my sub... err I mean friend.. and he'll give me a $500 referral. You see where I am going with this? Nothing will change except the job title on the stormer's business card.


----------



## buildpinnacle (Apr 18, 2009)

Larry, most PA's, if they are any good, will cover their fees in the increased settlement amount they will obtain. That will allow for them to be paid, and still have adequate funds to hire Grumpy. Grumpy makes more money, so he can afford to pay the PA's refererral fee. Capitalism at it's best.


----------



## Kanga Roofing (Jun 8, 2011)

larryb said:


> Politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, P&C ins co's, Public Adjusters - all who want to prohibit contractors from negotiating (properly pricing at profitable rates) with insured's ins co's to help them to achieve the highest legitimate claim settlements.
> 
> The end result is that insured's - you, me, anyone else who pays ins premiums, are prohibited from authorizing a contractor to advocate on our behalf and instead, forcing us to either hire a PA, an attorney or lay down and let the ins co run us over.


I can see how this could be a problem but who is to determine how big of a problem it is to actually go forward with this?


----------



## larryb (Jul 22, 2010)

Kanga Roofing said:


> I can see how this could be a problem but who is to determine how big of a problem it is to actually go forward with this?


 
Kanga, If the politicians (who are also connected to the insurance industry) have their way, contractors will no longer be able to do what they have been doing best for decades and that would be a big, at least, financial problem. MN is the first state to defeat the attempt to pass no negotaion legislation. With our experience up here and a good bit of publicity, I believe will be able to assist in stopping the passage in other states as well as reversing the legislation that has already been passed.


----------



## buildpinnacle (Apr 18, 2009)

Larry, I find that most contractors horribly undervalue most insurance losses. A proper insurance claim should be built around the specific coverages outlined in the policy. This is something I rarely see most contractors do. That being said, I am a huge fan of third party independent numbers when presenting our files to the carrier. I will generally retain specific trades, cause and origin specialists, industrial hygienists, etc. I work with contractors quite often on our files as I think most PA's do. However, there is a conflict of interest when a contractor is negotiating the scope and price for their own work. I believe there is an opportunity in that situation for the contractor's best interests to supersede that of the insured.


----------

