First, please allow us to extend a BIG THANK YOU for comment and an ever bigger thanks for being so patient with a reply. My office has been so busy as of late that extra-extracurriculars like this site had to be temporarily put on hold. We were also hoping that another reader might reply too. Your question is a simple one that’s been personally plaguing my office for quite some time. Your theory is completely appropriate for the 21st century and we while it seems unethical to go biting the hands that feed us, most carriers are living in the past. It’s true that contractors do get into situations during peel back or removal and my office is very accepting of this condition. We’re so aware that acceptance of those related supplements is even accepted in cases where the removal didn’t happen for months.

I am not quite sure what you mean about being unethical to include the insured in the process for extra money. All of the property carrier clients my office has make their payments directly to the insured but put us in the middle to obtain an agreed figure with the contractor of their choice. Unfortunately I cannot comment on how other companies operate. My associates and I estimate that is is customary to pay the insured.

The unethical contractor could be stayed from all this ruckus with an addendum from the adjuster and we’ve attempted that. The simple fact is that insurers feel they are stretching their liability for some reason and that their clients would construe it as a step away from simple settlements. Hopefully that clears things up a little, and if any of us are lucky (carriers, adjusters AND contractors), then an agreement to limit the time for supplements would be allowed.

Phillip A. Crimaldi manages the Denver branch of Peak Claims, Inc and has adjusted, estimated and worked with over 500 non-catastrophic residential claims, appraisals and other structural insurance claim related matters