Several weeks ago, the following message was sent to one of your members:

---------------------------------------------

It has been brought to my attention that you have made a demand for payment from Armor Shield Roofing for ten percent of the contract between Armor Shield and one of their customers in which you had no involvement.  Since you had no involvement in prosecuting the part of the claim for work that Armor Shield and their customer agreed to prior to your involvement and that Armor Shield completed, your demand is suspect and without merit.  In order to resolve this issue amicably, without further delay and without reportage to the authorities, I suggest that you immediately write or move the insured to write and present to Armor Shield, a check for the full amount due Armor Shield for their work.  Once the check has cleared Armor Shield’s account, Armor Shield will then sign off on the check now in their possession and deliver it to the insured.  

Thank you,

Larry Burtis - Minneapolis, MN

---------------------------------------------

October 7, 2018:  As of todays date, I have not heard back from you nor have I been informed that you followed the instruction included in my previous email message.

A statement from your website reads as follows:  "When we worked for the insurance carriers, executives and adjusters bonuses were tied to how little gets paid out in claims."  With that admission, the logical question presents itself.  If, when you worked for the insurance carriers (plural), executives and adjusters bonuses (presumably including your own) were tied to how little gets paid out in claims, you accepted those bonuses (if any paid) that resulted from paying little out on claims and agreed to work under those terms, how can you justify that and how can you now demand that a contractor pay you ten percent of a contract with which you had no involvement?  My reading of the CT PA statutes leads me to the conclusion that you may be in violation of, at minimum, Section 38a - 788 - 8.  Compensation. 

Example:  Contractor signs agreement with insured with no PA involvement or support for $65,000.  Insured then contracts with PA for assist on balance of claim in the amount of $50,000.  Total claim = $115,000.  Total 10% PA fee on PA portion = $5,000.  PA then incorrectly assumes he or she is due a 10% fee on the entire claim and then demands payment.  Since no fee is due PA for contractor mitigation work in the amount of $65,000, no 10% fee ($6,500) is due PA.  Since the total PA fee per the above scenario would be the $5,000 but the PA has demanded an additional fee in the amount of $6,500, the PA is demanding he or she be paid 23% of the total claim rather than the 10%/$5,000 legally owed to him on the $50,000.  The PA would then be in violation of the statute and it would be proper to report him or her to the state licensing authorities, including the Connecticut Insurance Department and the state AG as well as the local media.  It is highly unlikely that you will disregard communications from the above as you have disregarded mine.

Sincerely,

Larry Burtis