In property claim settlements involving damage to a dwelling or to a commercial building, someone or some entity is likely going to be contracted for all or part of the needed repairs. In most cases the owner of the property will hire a General Building Contractor. In this article I will refer to such contractors and their sub-contractors together by means of “repair individual or entity,” since this is the description used in section 2695.9(d)(3) of the California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations (hereafter, “CA Regulations”). Similar wording is also used in section 2695.9(b)(c)(1)(2) of the CA Regulations, which sections read:
Section 2695.9. Additional Standards Applicable to First Party Residential and Commercial Property Insurance Policies
(b) No insurer shall require that the insured have the property repaired by a specific individual or entity.
(c) No insurer shall suggest or recommend that the insured have the property repaired by a specific individual or entity unless:
(1) the referral is expressly requested by the claimant; or
(2) the claimant has been informed in writing of the right to select a repair individual or entity and the insurer shall cause the damaged property to be restored to no less than its condition prior to the loss and repaired in a manner which meets accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction at no additional cost to the claimant other than as stated in the policy or as otherwise allowed by these regulations.
There are two critical facts here: 1) the insurance company cannot require an insured to use a particular repair individual or entity; and 2) the insurance company cannot even "suggest or recommend" a "specific individual or entity" unless the referral is "expressly requested" by the insured or unless the insurance company first informs the insured in writing of his or her right to choose the repair individual or entity.
Obviously, though, insurance companies are not obligated by the above CA Regulations to pay any estimate from any repair individual or entity chosen by an insured. At the same time, they cannot refuse to "reasonably adjust" (CA Regulations, section 2695.9[d][3]) the estimate obtained by the insured from the repair individual or entity of their choosing. Insurance companies cannot price-fix the insured out of making his or her own choice by adjusting only their own estimate or that of some other repair individual or entity not chosen by the insured. The focus must be on the estimate obtained by the insured from the repair individual or entity chosen, since that is the estimate that needs to be negotiated in order to maintain the insured's rights, in this case, his or her right to choose a repair contractor.
But since insurance companies often obtain or write their own repair estimate for a comparative evaluation of the estimate obtained from the insured's chosen contractor, two legitimate questions naturally arise from the perspective of both the insurance company and from the insured:
Insurance Company: Is the estimate from the insured's chosen contractor grossly inflated or out of line with costs in the construction market local to the affected structure?
Consumer/Insured: Is the estimate written or obtained by the insurance company a "low- ball" bid that is only suitable for an insurance company's "preferred vendor" but too low for a quality public construction company in the area where the loss occurred?
There are two legitimate answers to these two legitimate questions and both of them depend on one condition: What kind of contractor did the insured choose?
If, for example, the insured has chosen a repair entity or individual that works regularly for or with insurance companies or with their adjusters and because of this regular work association they are able to accept lower unit costs or eliminate certain common repair estimate items like the cost for a project manager, base service charges relating to the size of the job, or other conditions necessary in order for a particular repair individual or entity to receive referrals from insurance companies, then it may be that such a contractor, if chosen by the insured, can work with the costs and the scope limitations that insurance companies require of those vendors who work for or with them.
However, public contractors, whom I define in my book Property Claims Adjusting: A Complete Guidebook for the Consumer: California Homeowners Edition (Murrieta, CA: Premier Claim Consultants, 2007), page 138, as "Licensed General Building Contractors who do not work for or with insurance companies," have no such relationship with an insurance company such that they must accept the same reductions in pricing and scope of work commonly expected by insurance companies for insurance company contractors, defined in my book, page 136, as repair entities "who work primarily or exclusively for or with insurance companies." These are two different types of contractors, and their typical costs and the scope of work they usually prepare for similar jobs will often differ in certain key respects.
That is why when a consumer gets a repair estimate from a public contractor, one who does not work for or with insurance companies, and then the adjuster for the insurance company gets an estimate from an insurance company contractor, they are almost always different with the public contractor usually higher than the insurance company contractor. But since the insured has the right to choose his or her own repair contractor, and since insurance companies are required to "reasonably adjust" the chosen contractor's estimate (not their own estimate or one obtained by a contractor friendly to the insurance company), then the focus should stay on the insured's contractor, not on any estimate prepared by any other individual or entity. But as any public insurance adjuster will tell you, in property claim settlements today the insurance company is focused almost exclusively on their adjuster's or on their preferred contractor's estimate, not on the estimate prepared by the repair individual or entity chosen by the insured. Thus, the exact opposite of what should be happening is what's happening more often than it should.
But it's a legitimate question to ask: "Is the estimate from the insured's chosen contractor grossly inflated?" It's also legitimate to ask: "Is the estimate from the insurance company adjuster or from the insurance company's preferred vendor a 'low-ball' bid?" The answer to each question will most likely depend on one condition: Which type of contractor did the insured choose: A public contractor or an insurance company contractor? You cannot look at one as if it is the other, and you cannot require one type of contractor to accept the pricing and scope limitations or parameters of the other, either. In any event, it is the estimate from the insured's chosen contractor that must be 'reasonably adjusted' (CA Regulations, section 2695.9[d][3]). Not anyone else's estimate.
For more information about how to successfully negotiate your property insurance claim, how to evaluate public insurance adjusters, choosing repair contractors, and understanding many of your rights and obligations in a property claim settlement, see Property Claims Adjusting: A Complete Guidebook for the Consumer, California Homeowners Edition (Murrieta, CA: Premier Claim Consultants, 2007).
For more information about public adjusters in general, expert witness services, property claims adjusting, appraisals, and litigation support, visit my website at http://www.premier-claim-consultants.com/.