Видео

We got here by greed. Why is Progressive CEO worth $15,600,000 payout for 2023? That's just one CEO of one company. It's ridiculous!

Respectfully, labeling this fee cap as "consumer protection" is a misguided approach that ultimately disadvantages consumers by granting insurance carriers undue advantage on smaller claims. The majority of disreputable public adjusters I'm aware of charge around 10%, swiftly tackling the straightforward aspects of a claim before hastily moving on (often securing the same or slightly more than the Insured would have gotten without a public adjuster anyways). The current modifications to the model rules utterly fail to address this behavior, merely capping what dedicated public adjusters can feasibly invest in terms of time and resources into a typical claim without jeopardizing their profitability. While it's true many states have implemented fee caps, it's also evident that states with such caps (like Texas and Florida) experience higher litigation rates for first-party claims. Public adjusters in these jurisdictions aren't motivated to thoroughly invest in claims as they ought to, preferring instead to handle a large volume of claims superficially, and referring them to attorneys when obstacles arise. Ideally, claims should be settled outside of litigation by skilled claims professionals - NOT lawyers. This idea that public adjuster fees are a significant issue forcing consumers to dip into their own funds for repairs is baseless, lacking any concrete evidence, and completely misses the real problem. Public adjusters exist predominantly because insurance companies routinely underpay on claims. However, for the sake of argument, if we were to entertain the notion that the fees charged by public adjusters are problematic for consumers facing out-of-pocket repair costs, what then of claims that are reopened? When an insurer insists no additional funds are due, yet a public adjuster leverages their expertise to secure a settlement exponentially larger than the initial amount, how can anyone justify vilifying these adjusters for demanding a higher fee? That compensation would have remained unclaimed without the adjuster's intervention. The imposition of a fee cap severely undermines our ability to contest disputed claims, such as when an insurer's inadequate investigation leads to an unjust stance. A skilled public adjuster might engage an independent expert to validate the claim on behalf of the policyholder. Yet, when insurance companies negligently shift the burden of conducting a thorough investigation onto policyholders, these individuals are forced to bear the cost of expert opinions out of their own pockets, with no assurance of reimbursement. It's not uncommon for professional public adjusters to absorb these expenses, shouldering the financial risk themselves. This fee cap inflicts the most damage on the very consumers that professional public adjusters aim to protect, while insurers benefit from a decreased likelihood of firms engaging with and dedicating resources to contest "average sized" disputed claims. The current model rules specify that fees should be reasonable - this seems to be the best approach considering every claim is different. With the reasonable fee approach, fee schedules can still be scrutinized, but on a case-by-case basis if an issue arises. Rather than zeroing in on fee caps, which evidently do little to deter the operations of underqualified and dishonest public adjusters, why not elevate the licensing criteria? A significant number of public adjusters lack essential construction knowledge and a deep understanding of policy coverage.

If you work in a different area talk about your towns vacation spot

what a great interview!

"Promo SM"

I really enjoyed this video!!! You are late to the party > "Promo sm".

p͎r͎o͎m͎o͎s͎m͎ 😂

fale