It’s very evident that the writer of this article is well knowledged in the process. While I agree with him. I also want to make it clear the company he founded is a large supplier of appraisal personnel for insurance carriers. I’ve always wondered. Why it is that a public adjuster cannot be the appraiser on the claim that he is involved with. When in fact companies such as Held. Are allowed to continually supply appraisers for the insurance industry. In matter of fact, the same carriers repeatedly. Where is the conflict of interest? Oh. The better job they do, the more work they get. That said.
The appraisal process is not an absolute perfect instrument. But it’s existed for almost 200 years. Regardless of which side you are on. As an appraiser, you are doing the best job you can for the person that hired you. Independent. Not really. No one is. No matter how you get paid. It’s a fallacy. But this is why the umpire is selected. If the parties cannot agree on who. The courts appoint one who is supposed to be independent of each appraiser.
The process has now come full circle and the carriers are using it to break the insured ability to fight. Doing so Intentionally. Sending out original offers to Insureds, which are low. Hoping the offer is accepted. If not, then invoke appraisal clause. If insured does not have a professional assistant. Then this is very detrimental to those individuals with less knowledge as a carrier. As for the smaller claims, cost prohibitive. Because of the cost of hiring an appraiser and half of the Empire. Hug Great.
So, the final question I threw out as put forward earlier. What really is independent? Will a licensed does not make you independent. Nor does how you get paid.
We concur. It should be evident to all in the industry that the author’s article is self serving as its ok for his company to act as a consultant for insurance companies and at the same time appraise claims for the insurance company. His company is neither “independent, disinterested, or unbiased” on any appraisal that they consult with the same carrier on other claims and derive a large source of their income from the very carrier they are appraising the claim for. Additionally, if Appraisers were required to have insurance licenses it would involve hundreds if not thousands of unlicensed consultants to go get insurance licenses and this would be disruptive and very costly for the author and his company.
The Appraisal is an “insurance transaction” That involves negotiating with an insurance co representative to set the amount of loss that is submitted on an executed binding award and used as an actual settlement to pay the claim. Unavoidably coverage issues arise during the course of the Appraisal that involve coverage allocation, prior damages, causation, overlapping damages etc. Appraising a claim is Adjusting a claim as they have become indistinguishable from one another.
The Appraising of claims has become one giant loophole for those that are unlicensed and/or unable to obtain an insurance license. Anyone involved in the appraisal process acting for an insurance company or an insured should have an insurance license.
Setting aside that the allegations in your opinion are arguable in the context of the disinterest test, I am curious as to exactly what type of license you believe will help the process. You make reference to an “insurance license”, can you be more specific? The article was written to present the opinion that requiring an adjusters license will not be a solution for appraisal process problems in FL, whether they are real or perceived. If there is another type of license that will somehow make appraisal a better process to solve valuation disputes, I would love to know what that is. Reducing the available pool of qualified people to act as an appraisers is, in my view, a mistake. That is, or course, separate and apart from your allegations of appraiser bias inherent in your comment.
The article is correct. Appraising is not adjusting. The thing that stands out to me is that the department of “INSURANCE” would be in charge of the licensing requirements. This means that if a license is required, then the INSURANCE industry would be in charge of the entire process. This goes against the intent of the clause. Adjusters are not typically trained appraisers. Making a license requirement simply muddies the waters and limits the pool of qualified and independent appraisers.
The article is inaccurate. “Appraisal” is “Adjusting” for the following reasons:
1. both process involve “negotiating” the amount of the loss with the insurance co representative Appraiser.
2. both process are engaging in “insurance transactions” required by law to be licensed as an adjuster or to have an insurance license in Fl.
3. both involve coverage allocation delineation on the face of the award and the determination of loss categories as they are appraised based on the coverage afforded in the policy. Unavoidably coverage is an issue and discussed in every Appraisal, within the panel. The organizations that promote this unlicensed activity of Appraising claims have self serving interest that opposes regulation.
4. both involve the determination of “causation” in the state of Florida
5. both involve using an insurance claim document award as a basis for the settlement of the claim.
6. both processes are indistinguishable from one another. All action in the appraisal mirrors the adjustment of the claim or what an adjuster does on the claim prior to a dispute.
It makes perfect sense to have anyone involved in an “insurance transaction” representing the public/an insured to be held to a higher standard and be well versed in insurance policy language, and coverage.
The authors writes a self serving article because its too financially burdensome for his 1800 consultants to get insurance licenses. Held derives a large source of their income as insurance consultants and are engaged in conflictual conduct by acting as Appraiser and representing the same insurance companies for consulting work. None of their personal can act in an “unbiased, disinterested, independent” manner while they are simultaneously appraising and consulting with the same insurance company. The notion that an unlicensed individual can act as an “Appraiser” and represent an insured by negotiating what is essentially a settlement amount of the loss with an insurance co representative Appraiser is absurd and needs to have oversight by the regulators.
There are too many misconceptions that have complicated the truth of the matter, which are leading practitioners down dead-end roads that only appear valid, because wrong assumptions result from a lack of applicable knowledge.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It’s very evident that the writer of this article is well knowledged in the process. While I agree with him. I also want to make it clear the company he founded is a large supplier of appraisal personnel for insurance carriers. I’ve always wondered. Why it is that a public adjuster cannot be the appraiser on the claim that he is involved with. When in fact companies such as Held. Are allowed to continually supply appraisers for the insurance industry. In matter of fact, the same carriers repeatedly. Where is the conflict of interest? Oh. The better job they do, the more work they get. That said.
The appraisal process is not an absolute perfect instrument. But it’s existed for almost 200 years. Regardless of which side you are on. As an appraiser, you are doing the best job you can for the person that hired you. Independent. Not really. No one is. No matter how you get paid. It’s a fallacy. But this is why the umpire is selected. If the parties cannot agree on who. The courts appoint one who is supposed to be independent of each appraiser.
The process has now come full circle and the carriers are using it to break the insured ability to fight. Doing so Intentionally. Sending out original offers to Insureds, which are low. Hoping the offer is accepted. If not, then invoke appraisal clause. If insured does not have a professional assistant. Then this is very detrimental to those individuals with less knowledge as a carrier. As for the smaller claims, cost prohibitive. Because of the cost of hiring an appraiser and half of the Empire. Hug Great.
So, the final question I threw out as put forward earlier. What really is independent? Will a licensed does not make you independent. Nor does how you get paid.
We concur. It should be evident to all in the industry that the author’s article is self serving as its ok for his company to act as a consultant for insurance companies and at the same time appraise claims for the insurance company. His company is neither “independent, disinterested, or unbiased” on any appraisal that they consult with the same carrier on other claims and derive a large source of their income from the very carrier they are appraising the claim for. Additionally, if Appraisers were required to have insurance licenses it would involve hundreds if not thousands of unlicensed consultants to go get insurance licenses and this would be disruptive and very costly for the author and his company.
The Appraisal is an “insurance transaction” That involves negotiating with an insurance co representative to set the amount of loss that is submitted on an executed binding award and used as an actual settlement to pay the claim. Unavoidably coverage issues arise during the course of the Appraisal that involve coverage allocation, prior damages, causation, overlapping damages etc. Appraising a claim is Adjusting a claim as they have become indistinguishable from one another.
The Appraising of claims has become one giant loophole for those that are unlicensed and/or unable to obtain an insurance license. Anyone involved in the appraisal process acting for an insurance company or an insured should have an insurance license.
Setting aside that the allegations in your opinion are arguable in the context of the disinterest test, I am curious as to exactly what type of license you believe will help the process. You make reference to an “insurance license”, can you be more specific? The article was written to present the opinion that requiring an adjusters license will not be a solution for appraisal process problems in FL, whether they are real or perceived. If there is another type of license that will somehow make appraisal a better process to solve valuation disputes, I would love to know what that is. Reducing the available pool of qualified people to act as an appraisers is, in my view, a mistake. That is, or course, separate and apart from your allegations of appraiser bias inherent in your comment.
I disagree, because wrong assumptions result from a lack of applicable knowledge.
I disagree, because wrong assumptions result from a lack of applicable knowledge.
The article is correct. Appraising is not adjusting. The thing that stands out to me is that the department of “INSURANCE” would be in charge of the licensing requirements. This means that if a license is required, then the INSURANCE industry would be in charge of the entire process. This goes against the intent of the clause. Adjusters are not typically trained appraisers. Making a license requirement simply muddies the waters and limits the pool of qualified and independent appraisers.
I mostly agree.
The article is inaccurate. “Appraisal” is “Adjusting” for the following reasons:
1. both process involve “negotiating” the amount of the loss with the insurance co representative Appraiser.
2. both process are engaging in “insurance transactions” required by law to be licensed as an adjuster or to have an insurance license in Fl.
3. both involve coverage allocation delineation on the face of the award and the determination of loss categories as they are appraised based on the coverage afforded in the policy. Unavoidably coverage is an issue and discussed in every Appraisal, within the panel. The organizations that promote this unlicensed activity of Appraising claims have self serving interest that opposes regulation.
4. both involve the determination of “causation” in the state of Florida
5. both involve using an insurance claim document award as a basis for the settlement of the claim.
6. both processes are indistinguishable from one another. All action in the appraisal mirrors the adjustment of the claim or what an adjuster does on the claim prior to a dispute.
It makes perfect sense to have anyone involved in an “insurance transaction” representing the public/an insured to be held to a higher standard and be well versed in insurance policy language, and coverage.
The authors writes a self serving article because its too financially burdensome for his 1800 consultants to get insurance licenses. Held derives a large source of their income as insurance consultants and are engaged in conflictual conduct by acting as Appraiser and representing the same insurance companies for consulting work. None of their personal can act in an “unbiased, disinterested, independent” manner while they are simultaneously appraising and consulting with the same insurance company. The notion that an unlicensed individual can act as an “Appraiser” and represent an insured by negotiating what is essentially a settlement amount of the loss with an insurance co representative Appraiser is absurd and needs to have oversight by the regulators.
I agree with half, and I disagree with half.
There are too many misconceptions that have complicated the truth of the matter, which are leading practitioners down dead-end roads that only appear valid, because wrong assumptions result from a lack of applicable knowledge.