# Public Adjusters



## O'Donnell Roofing & Solar (Jan 17, 2011)

Well the story goes like this, A neighbor says she has a leak, I investigate, there is a rust hole in a tin valley on the home, this is an 85+ year old PA, grey Slate roof. This roof has been maintained, only a few missing or broken pieces. I fix the hole, leak solved for now.

She knows she needs a new roof, will talk in the spring.
2 weeks go by, I see 4 10 x 10 tarps covering areas on the roof dormers. I phone her, she says her son called a Public Adjuster.
They show up, unannounced to her and installed the tarps. Now the roof has 8 pcs. of 1x3s nailed into the roof holding down he tarps. With more slates broken due to foot traffic. 
Then, they call and show up to tear down the loose ceiling plaster and install fans. 
They say "don't worry the insurance company will pay for everything." 
She is very uncomfortable about the whole thing.
None of this work was necessary, there hasn't been a storm around here for 18 months. 
What do I tell her? I think the public adjuster will get paid a lot of money, insurance won't cover the whole roof price, or will they?

Thanks for reading


----------



## chb70 (Jan 19, 2009)

I did a neighbors roof in October because he was out of town and his son called someone out to fix a leak (3' x 3' ) area. 
The contractor tarped the entire top section of home with (15)1"x2" strips nailed to roof.
I met with the adjuster and they paid for the top section of home, the owner paid for the lower section.
I am not sure what would happen if as a contractor you do more damage to a roof in a repair situation, but seems very sketchy to me.

Maybe the insurance company would have been more reluctant to pay if the original contractor who tarped the roof and caused more damage would have been there instead of me.


----------



## Pie in the Sky (Dec 21, 2011)

I frequently work with Public adjusters. They Always tell the homeowners they will get it all paid for, about 60% of the time they are correct (in my experience). Public adjusters I have talked to typically collect a 10% fee. It’s a lot like attorneys, there are good and bad ones. BUT the bad ones are one reason our insurance is so hi. Meeting with one today on an appraisal on a wood shake roof with spatter marks from hail. Not damage but it all depends on what the umpire decides. 

I am guessing this homeowner is pretty much SOL. They probably have recourse if there is no real damage, but it will cost more to recoup the money then to just pay for the repairs. Fair? NOPE but I’m sure there poor people learned a lesson. You were obviously the person to talk to about this roof, and they chose to call someone else. 
 Sorry...


----------



## larryb (Jul 22, 2010)

If you fixed the roof problem there was no need to call in a PA. I suspect that the son, expecting he would eventually inherit the home from his mother got the idea that he could get the insurance company to pay to replace the entire roof if a dishonest PA (a friend maybe?) who pretty much guaranteed he could get everything paid would total it out then he'd not be required to pay to have the roof replaced out of pocket (again, probably using money inherited from his mother).

18 months from the last storm is probably too long ago to call in a claim - even on a "when discovered" basis. Who knows, maybe the PA will get the roof paid for and, hopefully, mom will call you to do the work.

Just in case though, hope the PA has a good E&O policy that probably has a $10,000 deductible attached to it.

Let us know how this one proceeds.


----------



## Jayteedee (Dec 1, 2009)

There are a couple of issues at play here that essentially creates a loophole situation. 

First, the resulting water from the leak itself is almost alway covered by insurance in an owner occupied dwelling. There may be a few policies out there that require physical storm damage to cover the resultant water damage, however, those are few and far between. 

Second, the policy requires that the policyholder care for their property and states that they must use reasonable measures to prevent further damage and protect their property. There is no definition of "reasonable measures".

This creates a catch 22. All the public adjuster or policyholder has to raise is that they are concerned about mold, health concerns etc, etc and there is not an insurance carrier out there that is going to say "don't prevent further damages". 

Whomever the public adjuster sent out, then, goes hog wild "protecting" the property and creates more damage because "they don't know where the leak is coming from" and "they don't want to be on the hook for not stopping the leak" that caused the potential mold that caused the potential "health issues" that the policyholder has or will have. The Public Adjuster will use this to their full advantage. 

I can't tell you how many times this scenaro occurs when there is minimal damage. Once the contractor has put many holes in the roof, even without damage, the argument then turns that the insurance carrier allowed this to happen. The contractor will claim due to difficult access, poor weather, dangerous conditions and such that they did what they had to do as required by the policy. 

Now the homeowner has all sorts of holes "damage" that weren't there to begin with and the public adjuster argues that this was to prevent further covered interior damage. 

Depending on your local insurance laws, if your state has a matching statute such as Minnesota or Kentucky, chances are the insurance ends up buying that roof. 

In most areas, they are going to fix the damage that occurred as a result of the "protection" services, but, will probably exclude the rusted valley. Given that the roof is slate, I would bet that the adjuster never gets on that roof. 

Bottom line, the public adjuster involvement is going to get the insured payment that they probably should not get. Portions of that roof are going to get repaired that shouldn't have been involved.

However,, don't be surprised when those blue tarps are still there in August because the claim has not settled.


----------



## Pie in the Sky (Dec 21, 2011)

Nice Post JayTeedee


----------



## O'Donnell Roofing & Solar (Jan 17, 2011)

Its been 60 days now. The insurance company still has not moved on the claim.
I stopped the owner on her powerwalk today she said, " It was the worst mistake she has ever made in her life". 
"Bad Karma", she says.

All 5 of her bedrooms have 3' x 6' holes on the ceiling, this is plaster & lath mind you, there was only two leaks to begin with, the PA says don't worry the insurance will cover everything, _they will even pay to repair her roof._

This roof needed maybe 15 new slates to bring it up to good working order, now it has about 100 new holes in it from the 10d nails holding the 1x3 wood to hold down the tarps. Thats 2 new slates for each nail.

Lucky for her she has a lawyer, daughter in law. She says that the PA will take about 30% of the money.

More to come......


----------



## Tarrant County (May 18, 2012)

Better check the Statue of limitations
 first!


----------



## Pie in the Sky (Dec 21, 2011)

OD- Wish I could help. I grew up roofing in Philadelphia. I hate to see this. If there is anything I can do to help let me know.. Not sure where this is but Ill be back that way in November. Not sure what I could even do. Keep us updated.


----------



## Grumpy (Oct 29, 2008)

So the son creates the problem and the daughter in law fixes it? Was the daughter in law starving for a case or something? LOL


----------



## O'Donnell Roofing & Solar (Jan 17, 2011)

Spoke with the owner today: 
Her insurance company is playing hardball.

1. Insurance will only pay for roof repair, if she wants a new roof the cost is on them. The cost difference TBD ( 2200 sq.ft)

2. Some holes in the ceilings of the bedrooms are not covered. The insurance adjuster was told that there were 2 leaks. Only 2 ceilings should need repair.

3. The people that cut the holes were not instructed to do so, they will not be paid by the adjuster or the insurance company. 
The homeowner thinks they will still be billed by this contractor.

I have a meeting with them next week, I will review the other roofing estimates to determine the best course of action. While there, I will take photos of the roof & ceilings.

Thanks for reading...


----------



## dougger222 (Aug 13, 2010)

In MN a public adjuster can not act as contractor or vise versa.

Did someone sign a "contract" with this public adjuster?


----------



## O'Donnell Roofing & Solar (Jan 17, 2011)

I am not sure if there was a contract, seems that the PA is a friend of the owners son.

I am staying out of that part of the problem.
I just roll my eyes when the discussion about the tarps, plaster etc.
enter into the conversation. 

I don't want to become a professional witness.


----------



## nmarshall603 (Mar 25, 2012)

I would think that the customer could sue the PA because they damaged her home and insurance wont pay for it.. I would hope that to be the case!


----------



## O'Donnell Roofing & Solar (Jan 17, 2011)

Gee, What a surprise. Lets sue someone.

%$#@ing lawyers and insurance already own us.


----------



## O'Donnell Roofing & Solar (Jan 17, 2011)

Well the owner signed with us last Friday. It was a tough sell, we were the highest bidder. 
They ordered a new 30sq. Hatteras by CertainTeed roof with all new #12 painted steel gutter hangers and 240' 5" HR white aluminum gutters.

They are glad its almost over.


----------



## Dallas-Roofing (May 10, 2013)

In my experience I have yet to have an insurance company total a roof or buy a roof due to foot traffic or nails into the shingle. It has to be an act of God that damages the roof for insurance companies to pay to replace. Even then, the home owner will have to pay their deductible. I do believe that the adjuster did that particular home owner wrong from the sound of it. 

Devin Mahdi
Lewisville Roofing


----------

