One Response

1. Roger Poe

   July 30th, 2009 at 10:11 am

   1

   The article states;

   “All insurance provides an indemnity benefit to reimburse an individual for the value of their loss. An insured who believes that the purpose of insurance is to profit or get more than the fair market value of their property do not have the appropriate understanding of what insurance is for.”
   ____________________
   General contractors and alert consumers realize that it is clear that most residential/commercial structures that exist were “placed” by a general contractor using specialty subtrade contractors.

   This means that from the roof to the foundation ALL individual components of a structure, inside and out, contain general contractor and subtrade contractors’ business overhead and profit costs woven into them, per zip code/region.

   However, when insurers/adjusters go to estimate loss values on (hail/wind/etc.) damaged roofing systems, many claim that roofing systems do not contain general contractor overhead and profit costs.

   This is obvously not true on a new structure, and has to be rationally accounted for by replacement cost calculations of the future replacement mechanics and costs of a structure.

   Insurers/adjusters that claim that damage to a structure needs a certain “complexity” to require general contractor contractor involvement are, simply stated, unfairly, and seemingly illegally, attempting to manipulate the market general contractors make a living in, and understating what a policyholder/claimant is inherently entitled to.

   With that said, questions about the value of a loss come up that the average storm affected claimant, and insurance adjuster, may need to seriously consider;

   Is general contractor overhead and profit costs customarily/historically built into the cost of constructing structures?

   Conversely, do replacement costs of structures, calculated at insurance agents’ desks, account for general contractor costs customarily built into the cost of constructing structures?

   Since each construction component (from the roof to the foundation) on a structure contains general contractor plus specialty subcontractor overhead and profit values, why would insurers not owe it on partial losses, as part of the intrinsic structural value that was “lost” due to a insurance covered event?

   How is general contractor O&P value NOT woven into the limits of liability that are reflected by insurance premiums that reflect zip code/regional construction costs that reflect general contractor costs to replace a structure?

   So, does an insurer/adjuster owe for GC O&P as part of structural replacement cost loss values…?

   Well, since insurers charge for it, why wouldn’t it be owed as part of every components replacement/partial loss value?

   How do insurers/adjusters justify (a common insurance industry settlement claim) that three or more trades work is needed before GC O&P is part of the loss value, when they know GC O&P + subcontractors O&P is built into EVERY component on a structure?

   How can it be said a policyholder is “profiting” from their claim loss when GC O&P is part of the future loss value charged for in premiums, and conversely objectively owed as part of the aggregate loss value, whether a general contractor is used or not?

   -Roger Poe G.C.
   rogerpoegc@gmail.com

   http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/bulletins/1998/b-0045-8.html
   http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/bulletins/2008/cc70.html

   http://www.CatContractor.org
   ____________________

   http://www.alexanderclassactionsettlement.com/

   Nationwide Insurance agrees to pay for insurance claims “settled” between 1996-2009 that were underpaid general contractor overhead and profit values of 20% per claim.

   Sadly, the settlement calls for only a one month window for all previous claimants to come forward to collect what they are owed, and only considers losses that had 3 or more trades work type damage.

   Encouraging though is the fair construction market fact recognized by the court, plantiffs, defendants, and attornies, which is stated in the “court authorized notice” basic information section that;

   “GC O&P is an amount customarily charged by a general contractor for, among other things…work…supplied by ONE or more subcontractors in the course of repairing damage to a structure.”
   ____________________

   So be very alert to insurers/adjusters that claim that they (somehow) do not owe general contractor O&P replacement costs on roofing systems, or any other work requiring only one subcontractor.

   Unfair construction market manipulation and price fixing, coupled with an insurer reaping “illegal windfall”, are very serious consumer, policyholder, construction market, and state and federal financial fraud and anti-trust issues, are they not?