Posted: 15 Jan 2008 07:15 Post Subject: Q&A
Q: why does the claimant have to use the insurance company's preferred contractor?
A: They would need to pay for the claims our of their own pocket & hence need to justify the claim from their side. Thats the reason they want their men to do it. Yes, their men would be the ones who'd share their business interests & empathize with them from all quarters. Don't you think so! :)
Posted: 15 Jan 2008 07:25 Post Subject:
Its quite true that whenever you're gonna do it yourself then you'd look into your own benefits. Thats why much of your efforts would be undermined by the carrier. It could a good reason why you see a drop in terms of the claim amount.
Posted: 15 Jan 2008 07:28 Post Subject: parameters
Hi all! I'd simply describe this drop as a shortfall due to the differences in weighing parameters! Niccyybabewhite
Posted: 15 Jan 2008 01:41 Post Subject:
why does the claimant have to use the insurance companys preferred contractor when he's two times more expensive than any other contractor and why, if you decide to do the iob yourself does the amount of the claim drop by two thirds?
Unless I am reading this wrong, what do you mean the "have to use" ? Is this an auto claim or property claim?
Posted: 15 Jan 2008 04:37 Post Subject:
this is a property claim and i've been told on numerous occasions by the homeowner that they had to use the insurance companys preferred contractor. people who have never had a claim don't know any better. whatever happened to getting 3 estimates? where i live in canada theres 4 restoration firms. the adjusters and insurance companies have their favorites and thats who they use. in my experiences working with this restoration firm, the only customers that did not have to use a preferred contractor are the ones that stood firm and said that company was not getting in their door because of prior horror stories that they heard about that company. and those type of homeowners are few and far between.
Posted: 15 Jan 2008 11:33 Post Subject:
How are you the claimant on a homeowmer claim?
Posted: 16 Jan 2008 12:13 Post Subject:
i am an ex employee of of this restoration firm and because i'm the painter i am basically the last person in the claimants house, other than the person who gets the claimant to sign off, meaning their happy with the work on completion. as i am a professional, and carry myself in a professional matter, unlike the rest of this companies employees, people tend to open up to me. i do ask questions and the homeowners are more than happy to give me answers. and like i said earlier most homeowners are TOLD that this restoration firm is the firm that is going to be doing the work in their home. only the people who stand firm get the company that they want to do their work in their homes which is the way it should be. why should you have to have a restoration firm in your home that you've been told by family and friends that their workmanship sucks. theres an obvios reason that these adjusters keep using this firm and i believe i spelt thay out in my other posts.
Posted: 16 Jan 2008 03:20 Post Subject:
I am an ex employee of of this restoration firm
Now I get it. That wasn't quite clear to me from your posts in this thread, sorry.
I do not believe that anyone should be "required" to use a firm that their insurance company tells them to use. We call that "steering" and it's actualy illegal in most states. In some automotive divisions of insurance companies, they don't even let you "suggest" a certain vendor, lest they be accused of "steering".
As far as property, from friends that work in property, most insurance companies will suggest vendors for them to use. After the estimate is written, the insured is able to use whomever they want. However, if their choice vendor's estimate is higher than the insurance company's vendor, then they'll have to work out the difference with the insurance company.
I've never heard of a insured "having" to use a certain vendor for repairs. But this is down here in the states. Maybe Canada is different?
Posted: 16 Jan 2008 10:55 Post Subject:
You are correct Jake, no one HAS to use a certain provider...There are generally 'perks' to using a 'backed' provider however, such as a warranty or gaurantee from the insurance carrier backing that providers work...but in no way can you be forced to use a certain one.
Posted: 16 Jan 2008 11:04 Post Subject:
You are correct Jake, no one HAS to use a certain provider...There are generally 'perks' to using a 'backed' provider however, such as a warranty or gaurantee from the insurance carrier backing that providers work.
Yups. Direct Repair Programs for autos for example. Gotta love them. Or hate them. :)
The best part of DRP's is the warranty and the fact that whatever goes wrong is now the insurance company and the repair facilities problem. Customer service bad? Insurance company has to sort it. Repair time goes over? Insurance company makes the repair shop pick up rentals (as long as it was covered in the first place), etc.
I hear so many people think that DRP's aren't any good, and truth is there are some "below average" shops out there, but the majority of shops in DRP programs are actually pretty good. Most insurance companies have strict guidlelines they all have to follow.
I could go on about the other side of things, but I'll stop here. :)
Posted: 17 Jan 2008 10:47 Post Subject:
Yups. Direct Repair Programs for autos for example. Gotta love them. Or hate them.:lol: yeah, if you are one or not! ha ha...or if one is a giant pain in the butt, while doing ALL of the insurance companies work and you get two cars a month! :roll:
I agree the vast majority of DRP programs are good for all concerned, vehicle owner, ins. company, and shop. The thing to remember too (in most cases) Heaven forbid, but the shop goes out of business a year after the repair, ins company will still back the 'product'....
I'll assume Jake that you have several DRP's?
Posted: 17 Jan 2008 02:37 Post Subject:
Lori - I started a new thread on this topic ... see Direct Repair Programs ...