by notahappycamper » Mon Aug 02, 2010 07:39 pm
We recently had our home vandalized and it suffered approximately $5100.00 worth of damage. My mortgage co is 21st mortgage and they told me that I have to endorse the check and send to them. They told me they would also decide if my husband and I were qualified to repair the damages and that we would have to give proof of our qualifications. I told them I would send them the check and they could sign it and send it back to me. The lady on the phone told me that wouldnt work and I told her that I was not going to send the check. She then told me that they would contact the insurance company and get another check re-issued to them. Is this legal? I'm first on this check and the check is only for $4200.00. What can I do about this situation? Thanks for any advice! Heather
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 06:05 am Post Subject:
Did that actually make things easier for you? Didn't it complicate things between all parties?
I normally worked for the same carriers, so at the beginning of a claim once I confirmed that it was a covered loss I would inform the insured that they should contact their mortgage company to see what steps they needed to take to have the claim check signed and the money released. I figured even on the best claim that it would take a few days to work up the estimate and get an agreed price and then a few more for the insured to get a check. No matter the time frame, if the isured followed my advice they would know the process that they had to take with their morgage company.
I stayed out of most disputes between the insured and mortgage companies and the insured and their contractor. The insured's contract with those parties was between them. There were a few times that I would try and help certain insured's....usually elderly people or people that I could tell were being taken.
And as an independent, my file was usually closed once payment was made. I would not be able to bill for all of the additional calls to deal with every dispute.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:46 am Post Subject: insurance
The insured's contract with those parties was between them
I'd imagine that would be easier because you're 'cutting out the middleman' and you don't have alot of confusion. (Hope this makes sense).Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 01:33 pm Post Subject:
'cutting out the middleman'
The adjuster is not a middleman in the contract between a lender and a borrower or a property owner and a building contractor. They are the representative of either the insurer or the insured in a contract of insurance when a claim arises.
Trying to put the adjuster into any other situation/position is a discussion of apples and oranges.
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 05:28 am Post Subject:
I'd imagine that would be easier because you're 'cutting out the middleman' and you don't have alot of confusion.
Max, you have to see where SD is coming from. Anytime I got involved in a dispute between an insured and their contractor/mortgage company, i did become the middleman or at least in the insured's eyes. I was the one there holding their hand for the entire claim and now they have another problem and are looking for me to fix it. It did cause confusion and is one the reasons that I tried to stay out of it.
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 05:39 am Post Subject:
So which side of adjusting do you find more satisfying, the company side or the public side?
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 06:10 am Post Subject:
I'm not a public adjuster and never have been a public adjuster. I got out of adjusting because I got tired of insureds, contractors, claimants, attorneys, public adjusters and carriers always looking for money, not being on the up and up, trying to inflat claims, trying to down play claims....and all of it became my fault once the almost know nothing agent (sorry) got involved. Fraud on all sides is rampant and I just got tired of it.
I now do field underwriting surveys for an independent company. Work out of my house and mainly make my own hours. My stress is gone, 24 hour on call is gone, my wife is happy and I make more money (wife really happy). I rarely have to deal with carriers or agents. Never deal with contractors, attorneys or claimants. I get to help the insured and carrier save money by making sure the insured's building and business are in good shape. I also learned where not to eat....if people ever saw these kitchens.
Oh, also. No more climbing 3 story hotels roofs looking for hail damage. No more fighting contractors, haggling with attorneys, chasing witnesses, dealing with "hurt" claimants and being told by insureds that there agent (or someone that sold them a policy) that they have "full coverage".
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 06:15 am Post Subject:
Another reason is that the insured is going to blame the insurance company for putting them in the mess... even thought we know this is not the case. When it comes time for renewal... it may then be a lost premium.
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 08:51 pm Post Subject: Please Help?
When you have a mortgage on your home, your mortgage company is always named as a co-loss payee for losses. They do this in order that any damage to the property is put back in the same condition it was in when they issued the mortgage, not counting wear & tear. If there is fixable damage covered by insurance, they are right to want the damage to be repaired. I'm sure once you show proof, with receipts, pictures, etc., the co-loss payee would either pay the repair bills or sign the check over to you.
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 03:14 pm Post Subject: unit plus-fixed term
fund value statement
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:13 am Post Subject:
Not available due to technical difficulties. Internet connection to India lost.
Add your comment