The Unmasking of UPPA

Unauthorized Practice of Public Adjusting law

“One of the biggest financial scams ever perpetrated against the American insurance buying public”

By Larry Burtis – 3RSystems, LLC

 

 

No insured policyholder who becomes a victim of a natural disaster should be made a victim a second time by their insurance company

The following treatise on the subject of Unauthorized Practice of Public Adjusting (UPPA) law is an updated version of my original presentation which I gave at the 2019 “Win The Storm” conference and trade show expo in Las Vegas, NV following a debate on the topic that was attended by an estimated 3,000 plus storm damage insurance restoration contractors from across the country.

My name is Larry Burtis.  I am president of Minneapolis, Minnesota based 3RSystems, LLC which is a company with a primary focus on training storm damage restoration contractors from across the USA on the insurance covered property damage restoration process.  I bring to the table, nearly forty years of hands on retail and insurance restoration construction industry experience plus nearly twenty years of concurrent insurance/investment industry experience where my financial advice was sought out by, along with numerous mid to upper level business owners and executives, leaders of several of the country’s most well-known companies.

Along with that experience, I have also achieved, with the help and support of several Supreme Court Justices and other legal experts over the years, a winning Pro Se record against high profile law firms and their attorneys in complex, mostly consumer fraud related legal disputes involving various government and multi-million dollar corporate entities and individuals.  From my experienced perspective, when compared to those Pro Se legal battles, doing battle with Property & Casualty insurance company representatives, which is ultimately the true source of UPPA and what this writing is primarily about – from their CEO’s on down to their adjusters, their engineers, and related others, and repeatedly winning against them on behalf of insured property owners, is, as I see it, a relatively minor league play.

While that is indeed my experience, it definitely is not the experience of the great majority of storm damage restoration contractors and their representatives who lack the knowledge about what really takes place behind the curtain that so many from the P&C insurance industry hide behind while scheming to unjustly under pay and deny the legitimate claims of their insured policyholder customers.  That being the case, they, therefore, not knowing what P&C insurance is really up to, had no way of knowing what they can do about it!  They, and, whether a roofing, siding, and related building products distribution company director, shareholder, investor, or executive representative at whatever level, or one of the many millions of USA property owners who, in Toto, spend billions of their hard earned dollars each year to insure their properties, are about to however, learn what P&C insurance and their minions are really up to.

If you don’t know what UPPA is, you need to know! 

For the most part, throughout history, the insurance restoration contracting process of moving storm caused insurance covered property damage claims from filed to fully paid and completed, was a relatively simple one. Storm damage restoration contractors would inspect the damage, estimate the cost to repair it, negotiate with their customers insurance company’s on the final price, then complete the repairs. In 2010 however, a relatively new law, disingenuously and aggressively promoted as consumer protection by P&C insurance industry paid lobbyists and attorneys to state by state AG’s and legislators (some also paid) and then signed into law by ill informed or misled governors, began appearing all across the country. 

That law which is known as the Unauthorized Practice of Public Adjusting (UPPA) law, prohibits restoration contractors who know better than anyone what damage needs to be repaired and how much it should cost, from doing what they had been able to do for as long as insurance has been around – negotiate the final free market repair price of their customers property damage insurance claims.  It also prohibits restoration contractors from advocating on their insured customers behalf in even the smallest of ways.  One state’s UPPA law even goes so far as to prohibit contractors from simply mentioning to their insured property owner customers the importance of learning about and fulfilling their “Duties After Loss” obligations that are an integral part of all property & casualty insurance policies that if not fulfilled, could jeopardize their claims approval and payment. 

Foxes Guarding the Hen House

Minnesota storm damage restoration contractors were first introduced to UPPA in late 2010 when friend of P&C Insurance and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) – then, controversial and soon to be retired Minnesota Commerce/insurance commissioner Glenn Wilson, Jr., issued his Bulletin 2010-4 that became the impetus behind UPPA legislation in Minnesota.  As seen in a local Twin Cities, Minnesota newspaper not long after Wilson was appointed to his position; “Wilson was immersed in controversy last year when critics charged the Commerce Department, the state’s business regulatory agency, with protecting industry rather than consumers.”

The wording of the Minnesota UPPA bill was essentially the same as all other UPPA bills then being presented primarily to legislative banking, finance, and insurance committee members from across the country at the time.  Of note is the fact that many of those legislative committee members were (or still are) employed by or related to the P&C insurance industry in one way or another.   

The feigned premise behind the law, keeping in mind that only insurance company claims representatives can approve payments to their policyholders on their property damage claims, was that the law would, at least according to its drafters and supporters, prevent restoration contractors from overcharging their customers on their insurance covered storm damage restoration claims.  

The Public Adjuster Licensing Model Act (not law) on which UPPA was based, as drafted by National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (NAPIA) counsel and legatee Brian S. Goodman, along with NAIC Property and Casualty Subcommittee co-chairs Gene Reed and Treva Wright Donnell, was passed in October of 2005 by the NAIC.  Up until around 2010 however, there were still Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) issues that, as NAPIA counsel, Goodman needed to overcome before UPPA could be fully implemented.  Prior to that time, most storm damage restoration contractors from across the country had little to no idea what a Public Insurance Adjuster (PIA or PA) was or did. 

Pre UPPA – The ABA vs the PA Lobby

Prior to 2010, the American Bar Association (ABA) had been fighting with the PA industry in trying to prevent them from negotiating and advocating on behalf of property owners with insurance covered damage, calling what PA’s did, an Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL).  With UPPA beginning to gain real traction back around 2010 and the ABA agreeing to grant limited authority to the PA industry regarding the UPL issues around the same time, the PA lobby, which was and is, for all intents and purposes, Brian S. Goodman, seeing what he thought was a financial opportunity ripe for picking, decided to go on the offense against restoration contractors.

Post UPPA – The PA Lobby Vs Contractors

In March of 2011, having resolved those UPL issues with the ABA, Goodman said this:  “Interestingly, and paradoxically, we are now finding that while we no longer have to fight the issue of the unauthorized practice of law, we have to take the offensive and fight the ‘unauthorized practice of public adjusting’, as, in this down economy, we are finding that roofers and general contractors (or “ruthless unlicensed individuals” as Goodman once referred to storm damage restoration contractors) in the United States are advertising their services, ‘essentially’, as public adjusters.”  

Side bar food for thought:  Why would the ABA allow a UPL carve out for PA’s?  Simply put, if PA’s were allowed to conduct their business in a limited manner that might have previously been considered a violation of UPL, when it appears that a disputed claim cannot be resolved by a PA and the claim needs to be handed over to an attorney for prosecution, once the claim gets to that point, much of the work that an attorney would have otherwise been required to do, has likely already been done for them by the PA.

As mentioned previously, after a storm has occurred, storm damage restoration contractors know better than anyone what needs to be repaired and how much it should cost, and are therefore, best suited to negotiate the final free market repair price of their customers property damage insurance claims.  With that in mind, what was Goodman’s primary concern about the services that storm damage restoration contractors were advertising to their potential insured customers whose properties had become damaged?  It was the fact that the contractors were offering to negotiate their customers claims pricing with their insurance companies for free.  The implication being that, in doing so, those contractors were unfairly taking business and therefore, income, away from PA’s.    

In the past, property and casualty insurance policies were required to be written in such a manner so that a person of average intelligence could interpret them.  Logically and obviously, such persons of average intelligence would naturally include insured policyholders as well as their restoration contractors.  Any insured property owner could, if they were aware of their existence and the service they offer, hire a PA to assist them with their claim.  Because of the fact however, that, at least on most residential claims, in the past, insured’s and their restoration contractors could interpret the language of their policies, a PA was not needed to help do so. Also not needed in most cases, was an attorney.

Over the years however, as P&C insurance company profits began to decrease due to increasing claims ratios, P&C insurance began to write their policies in such a manner that made it next to impossible for insured’s to be able to interpret their own insurance policies without the help of an experienced restoration contractor, PA, or attorney.  Eventually, P&C insurance began to intentionally write their insurance policies in such a convoluted and confusing manner that only an experienced and well versed insurance attorney could interpret them.  The UPL carve out given to PA’s however, allowed PA’s to attempt to also interpret policies.     

Being that, at least according to the claims of P&C insurance, knowledgeable professional restoration contractors who did know how to fairly and accurately price repairs were costing them money, they sought out ways to prohibit those contractors from participating in the process.  The solution to the problem?   Shut them up by seeking law that would make it illegal for them to negotiate the pricing of insured customers storm damage claims.          

“Contractors are crooks?”

Another key figure heavily involved in the UPPA push was, and still is, prominent and outspoken Texas based insurance industry attorney Steve Badger.  Although, considering his position, he clearly had different interests than Goodman in mind, he apparently decided it would be helpful to his own purposes to partner with Goodman in aggressively promoting what was essentially a “contractors are crooks” UPPA narrative message to the masses – as well as the authorities, across the country.   As I understand it, both were also big supporters of “stay in your lane” laws now in place in a number of states that would charge any contractor believed to be in violation of UPPA with a crime that was punishable by up to a fifteen thousand dollar fine and possible jail time.  As time went on, both Goodman and Badger began aggressively promoting their divide and conquer “contractors are crooks” narrative to PA’s across the country for the sole purpose of driving a wedge between PA’s and contractors.  

For a time, many PA’s fell for the ruse that promoting the “contractors are crooks” narrative would give them some kind of competitive advantage.  The thinking seemed to be that, if PA’s were successful in getting that message across to insured property owners who might need help with their property damage claims, those property owners would believe that hiring a PA was essential because doing so would protect them from being harmed by those “crooked” contractors.  Eventually however, at least partially as a result of my repeated mentions to the restoration industry as a whole that continuing with such an ill-advised business practice was doing more harm than good, that specious narrative eventually fell by the wayside.  In fact, just prior to being elected as NAPIA president in 2021, well respected former restoration contractor turned PA, Clay Morrison, placed a friendly call to me letting me know my concerns had been heard and were being addressed.  

Although Badger’s UPPA arguments are often, IMO, much like those put forth by Goodman and others, specious as well as incongruent and, therefore, easily defeated, it’s easy enough to understand why Badger so zealously defends the questionable interests of the P&C insurance industry.  As is the case with third party insurance adjusting and engineering firms, the P&C insurance industry is the primary source of his income.  That not being the case with Goodman, who, first and foremost, as NAPIA counsel, lobbyist, and legatee, has a legacy to protect, I find the unholy alliance formed between the two seemingly opposing parties to be quite curious as well as deserving of scrutiny for what should be obvious reasons.  

Interestingly, many of the people behind the drafting, implementation, and passage of UPPA into law view and present themselves as quite noble in their support of the law as “consumer protection”.  The same also unfortunately holds true in regards to some in positions of authority who, even after considering objective evidence that reveals the truly fraudulent nature of the law, unjustly seek to score political points by charging contractors with a crime for violating it.  If those people (primarily state insurance commissioners – including Iowa’s own Doug Ommen) were really concerned about protecting the interests of insured policyholders, they would be going after the P&C insurance industry with at least the same degree of vengeance and holding them criminally accountable for the proven massive financial harm continually being caused by them to their too trusting insured policyholder customers. 

To those individuals, I ask, is supporting a law that hurts tens of thousands of storm damage restoration contractors free market based contracting businesses and turns too many of their insured policyholder customers into victims after the fact, really noble, or is it something else?  Who is more noble, the people behind what I believe to be one of the most unjust, anti-free market, and potentially unconstitutional laws ever written, or the insured property owner’s storm damage contractors who, with their hands, mind, and expertise, helps their insured customers to restore their properties and their lives after suffering through a property damage disaster?  That’s an easy one, it’s the contractors.  

The P&C Insurance Industry – From Service To Profits

 Insurance Claim Delays Deliver Massive Profits To Industry By Shorting Customers

From the HUFFINGTON POST – By Mollie Reilly and Max J. Rosenthal   Dec 13, 2011

“Unlike many other businesses, the insurance industry is bound by law to act in good faith with its customers. Because of their protective role in the lives of ordinary citizens, insurers have long operated as semi-public trusts. But since the mid-1990s, a new profit-hungry model, combined with weak regulation, has upended that ancient social contract.  Claims has been converted into a money-making process, said Russ Roberts, a New Mexico based management consultant and former business professor at Northwestern University who has studied the insurance industry’s evolution from a service business to a profit-driven machine.”

What the UPPA prohibition makes possible is for, in the pursuit of ever increasing profits, P&C insurance companies to, as Rutgers University law professor Jay Feinman, author of the book on the subject entitled, “Delay, Deny, Defend – Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It” described it, – “delay, deny, and defend” against paying their insured’s legitimate property damage claims indefinitely. The two pronged benefit to P&C insurance companies? 

Number one, and this is one of Warren Buffet’s favorites – the longer premium dollars which should have been paid out on their insured customers claims are withheld from them, the more money the insurance companies make on their investments.  Number two, in delaying claims payments for as long as possible, insured’s, most not knowing they may have other options, often become so distressed, frustrated, and fed up with the process, they simply give up the fight and accept whatever low ball and incomplete settlement their insurance companies offer and move on.  They are then left with substantial additional out of pocket repair cost debt for damaged items that their insurance company’s should have paid for but never did. 

The end result to the benefit of P&C insurance companies?  They retain, in house, hundreds of millions to billions of dollars every year in claims payments that should have ultimately been made to their insured policyholder customers to pay their contractors so they could, in turn, pay their employee’s and pay for all of the roofing and related building materials needed to complete the repairs.  

Defeating NAPIA’s and the P&C Insurance Industry’s Disingenuous Arguments in Favor of UPPA

As presented by then law student Robert C. Baker, III at a 2016 NAPIA meeting:  “The Costs Of The Unlicensed Practice Of Public Adjusting: A Legal And Economic Analysis.”  According to Baker, “UPPA has become synonymous with fraud perpetrated by disreputable contractors, ne’erdo-well storm chasers, and similar predatory ilk. The stereotypical transaction involves the fraudsters (meaning restoration contractors) going door-to-door after a natural disaster advertising repair and insurance negotiating services”.  The worst UPPA offenders – the storm chasers – are criminals.”  So, what is or was, according to Baker, their crime?  The “fraudsters” (contractors) offered their negotiating services as a free bonus if the insured’s also hired them to make the repairs.”

Baker then went on to say; “The common sense value of public adjusting is historically unassailable, insurance companies did not become one of the most regulated industries in America by altruistically having their customers’ best interests at heart.”  In other words, according to Baker, as well as, without doubt, Goodman, insured’s need public adjusters on their side because their insurance companies can’t be trusted to put their insured’s interests ahead of their own.  

Doubtful that anyone reading the above would disagree with the “insurance companies can’t be trusted” implication, or the “common sense value of public adjusting”.  That “common sense value of public adjusting” however, is only realized if and when a PA is brought in on a property damage claim which is, far too often, long after the claim would have already been settled pre-UPPA.

Further unpacking Baker’s “the insurance companies can’t be trusted” implication, previously mentioned Texas based insurance industry attorney Steve Badger represents and defends the P&C insurance industry that Baker implied cannot be trusted.  NAPIA’s Brian Goodman represents the public adjusting industry that both he and Baker say protects insured’s from insurance companies – like the ones that Steve Badger represents, and that Baker implied, cannot be trusted.  Think about that for a minute or two.

With the following, I further unpack several of Goodman’s and Badger’s other, additional and quite hypocritical arguments in support of UPPA. From their joint Lon Smith Appeal Amicus Curiae submission to the United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit (TX) on 12/26/2013, what I believe was an attempt to confuse and mislead the Court:  “The inherent conflict of interest in allowing an unlicensed and unregulated contractor performing the repair work to negotiate the final price that the insurance company will pay for its work is insidious and inescapable”.  Doubtful that either thought it necessary to make it clear to the Court that Texas does not license roofing contractors which therefore leaves them also, for all intents and purposes, unregulated?  

My response to such convoluted doublespeak?  Since the honest insured’s interest is in getting paid for all of the damage, at pricing relative to the premiums paid and the honest contractor best serves his/her own financial interests by putting the insured’s financial interests as described, first, there can be no conflict of interest, inherent or otherwise.  If there is any conflict of interest, it is typically between the insured’s who deserve to be fairly and fully paid on their claims and their insurance companies who will, in far too many cases, do everything they can to prevent that from happening.

And this; “Allowing unlicensed contractors, to act as intermediaries between the insured and an insurer would wreak havoc on the licensed and regulated public insurance adjuster profession.”  In other words, in, as I see it, another attempt to confuse and mislead the Court, contractors would take business and therefore income away from PA’s, business and income that, in fact and in reality, pre-UPPA, would never have gone to PA’s anyway.  In fact, the great majority of residential wind and hail storm damage claims fall under the $35k mark and since, not all, but most PA’s decline claims of that size and under, the “would wreak havoc on the licensed and regulated public adjuster profession” claim falls flat on its face.   

In most cases, the first person an insured with property damage looks to for help in getting their repairs made is a contractor.  Although not typically known by most insured’s, if need be, they may also utilize the services of a PA, appraiser, or an attorney who will, for a fee, assist them with their claims.  Fact is however, currently, only around 8% of insured’s ever hire a PA or an appraiser and only about 2% of insured’s ever hire an attorney.  Of that approximate 2% of policyholders who do hire an attorney, only 1% of them actually ever sue.

Pre-UPPA, and this is still the case today, the other approximate 90% of insured’s only known available help in getting their claims fully paid was and is that offered to them by their contractors.  BTW, pre and post UPPA, the approximately 10% where near or full claim payment is eventually achieved through PA, appraiser, or attorney involvement, was and remains of little concern to P&C insurance, financially or otherwise.

What was of great concern to P&C insurance however, was what to do about those pesky storm damage restoration contractors who were helping that other 90% of insured’s who did not hire a PA, appraiser, or attorney, to move their claims to fair and full value through the use of their claims negotiating skills.  P&C insurance’s proposed solution to the problem?  Take the contractors out of the claims negotiating process and, by way of UPPA, shut them up!  They figured that, if they could get legislation passed that they knew full well would leave that 90% of insured’s without contractor assistance and guidance (and therefore, exposed and vulnerable to P&C insurance’s double dealing), they could achieve their ultimate goal of increased market control.  

With that increased P&C insurance industry market control, they also knew they would be hundreds of millions to billions of dollars ahead each and every year.  Such thinking did, of course, fully disregard the fact that their insured customers would be left unfairly underpaid those same hundreds of millions to billions of dollars legitimately owed to them by their insurance companies.  But, in order to achieve their goal, they needed a ruse with which to conceal their true intent, and, they needed plenty of P&C insurance industry friendlies who were willing to ceaselessly promote the ruse.

First, take out the contractors, then the PA’s, and then the plaintiff’s attorneys

With the above in mind, my view on Badger’s reasoning behind his initial aggressive support of UPPA along with Goodman?  In service to his P&C insurance industry employers, first, work hand in hand with Goodman to shut down the restoration contractors via UPPA.  Then, once that was accomplished, disregard Goodman’s opposing interests, and institute actions that would call the PA industry into question.  Once that was accomplished, again on behalf of his P&C insurance industry employers, cause restrictions to be placed on insured’s plaintiffs attorneys.  All which has happened, just as I had predicted would eventually happen when I first opened my investigation into UPPA back in late 2011.

Although Badger and Goodman led the way in drawing attention to UPPA and promoting it, they weren’t the only suspects.  Based on the appearance of the names of State Farm Insurance general counsels Emory Wilkerson and Roland Spies – both, BTW, members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), showing up in support of various states template UPPA bills across the country, I concluded, or at the very least, highly suspect, based on the evidence, that one of the primary influencers behind the building of the UPPA wall was most likely, along with assists from Goodman and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), member, friend of, and high dollar contributor to the American Legislative Exchange Council, State Farm insurance.

So, who and what is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)?  With more than 2,000 members, ALEC is the nation’s largest, individual public-private membership association of corporations, their lobbyists and funded state legislators whose (supposed) mission is a commitment to limited government and free markets.  Funded almost entirely by large corporations, State Farm being one of their biggest financial contributors, ALEC introduces corporation written, lobbyist promoted template model legislation favorable to certain industries that those funded state legislators who are also ALEC members simply add their states initials to then take back to their home state legislatures and introduce as their own bills.

Those same funded ALEC member state legislators, who are wined and dined by the ALEC corporate lobbyists, often at exclusive resorts around the country, then present the pre-written template legislation to specific legislative committee members in their home states, in the case of UPPA, legislators typically employed by or connected to the P&C insurance industry in one way or another.  They then sign on as House and Senate Chief or co-authors.  They then “sell” the bills, in this case UPPA, to their ill-informed and, in some cases, quite clueless fellow legislators as consumer protection.  Those ill-informed legislators who fell for the “consumer protection” ruse, did then, without the truth or the facts, but with the next election cycle always in mind, vote in favor of the legislation so they could tell their constituents they were look’in out for them.

Consumer protection?  I’ll sign that!

Supported by the self-interests of the people mentioned, UPPA then got signed into law by ill-informed or misled state Governors who had either also fallen for the UPPA consumer protection ruse or simply didn’t bother to read the bills to find out was in them and consider how signing the legislation into law might negatively affect their constituents lives as well as their own future political prospects.  Several examples of this legislative nonsense are as follows.

One particular ALEC member I interviewed about UPPA a number of years ago was GA State Rep. Howard Maxwell.  Maxwell was a thirty-five year career Allstate agent who, along with three other career insurance agents and an Allstate attorney, were chief and co-authors of Georgia’s template UPPA bill.  I asked Maxwell directly, who brought the UPPA legislation to his and his fellow legislator’s attention.  Maxell told me that he and the others were presented with the legislation by then newly elected GA insurance and fire safety commissioner, ALEC member, and friend of the NAIC, Ralph Hudgens, who, according to various sources, had been treated to thousands of dollars-worth of meals and other goodies by P&C insurance interests over time as a GA Senator.

Colorado’s “No Negotiating” UPPA bill which was passed and signed into law in 2012 was sponsored by then Colorado House Rep and ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Public Chair Glenn Vaad, and supported by the aforementioned State Farm general counsel, Emory Wilkerson, who is/was also the ALEC Private Chair from Georgia.

And then there’s the Texas Department of Insurance.  In 2011, then Texas Governor and longtime ALEC member Rick Perry, reported recipient of several million dollars in campaign contributions from the American Legislative Exchange Council over time, appointed supposedly unbiased ex-insurance executive Eleanor Kitzman as interim TX insurance commissioner.  Shortly after her appointment, even though State Farm Lloyds was under criminal investigation regarding their claims handling practices in Texas at the time, Kitzman approved an increase in their homeowner’s premiums of up to 20%.

June 26, 2012, Kitzman issues her “public” policy Bulletin #B-0017-12, regarding Texas’ template version of UPPA, that read as follows; “Public Policy Strongly Favors Strict Enforcement of Laws Like Section 4102.051 Prohibiting Contractors From Engaging In The Unlicensed Practice of Public Adjusting”. Several months later, with the risk of Perry’s and Kitzman’s apparent State Farm cronyism being fully exposed to the public, and with a no confidence vote from the Texas Senate regarding Kitzman’s controversial tenure, Perry knew he could not appoint her to a new term and had to show her the door. 

Regarding Kitzman’s bulletin – who does that public policy truly serve?  If she were honest, her bulletin would have read: “P&C insurance industry policy (rather than Public Policy) strongly favors strict enforcement of laws like section 4102.051 – Prohibiting Contractors From Engaging In The Unlicensed Practice of Public Adjusting”.

“The truth never changes but it does change that which is not”

Let me just say this about the typically nonsensical and specious “public policy” such as that put forth by Kitzman, as well as Goodman, insurance attorney Steve Badger, former MN commissioner Wilson and so many related others in regards to UPPA.  In far too many cases, the public policy typically being promulgated by politicians, lobbyists, and insurance industry friendlies is often nothing more than disingenuous as well as dishonest self-serving BS meant to persuade an often too trusting and gullible public as well as ill-informed and clueless non-banking, financial, insurance committee member state legislators that what is being proposed by the promulgator truly serves the public’s interests rather their own.

Princeton University Professor of Philosophy, Harry Frankfurt, had this to say on the subject in his book entitled, “On Bullshit”. “The liar asserts something which he himself believes to be false. He deliberately misrepresents what he takes to be the truth.  The bull shitter, on the other hand, is not constrained by any consideration of what may or may not be true. In making his assertion, he is indifferent to whether what he says is true or false. His goal is not to report facts. It is, rather, to shape the beliefs and attitudes of his listeners in a certain way.”  Such is the case, as I see it, with the claim that UPPA is good public policy.  With that in mind…

Through the process just described, like it or not, and I don’t, UPPA has indeed, become the law of the land.  But, is it good law, or is it bad law?  Good law protects society, bad law does not.  Laws against speeding, DUI, and insurance claim funds theft, for example, are good laws that protect society and those laws are already in place.  Good law also protects the historically accepted ways and means by which honest people operating in a free market society earn their incomes.

As previously discussed, Pre UPPA, the historically accepted ways and means by which honest restoration contractors operating in a free market society earned their incomes and best served their insured customers was as straight forward as it was effective.  Inspect, estimate, negotiate the cost of the repairs at real, true, and accurate (RTA) free market pricing relative to the premiums paid, then complete the repairs. Law that does not however, protect the historically accepted ways and means by which honest people operating in a free market society earn their incomes, in this case, restoration contractors, is bad law.  It is also, among other things, anti-American NGO central planning forced market rather than free market.

It is true that a small minority of contractors, as is the case with a small minority of people in any other profession, can’t be trusted. That being said, is it reasonable to penalize all people in any profession for the bad acts of the very small minority.  No, but that is what UPPA unfairly does to all storm damage restoration contractors as well as their customers.  Who does that then leave to negotiate their customers claims with their insurance companies when their insurance companies have refused to move their claims forward to fair and full settlement?  Public adjusters, which, when contractors and their insured property owner customers hit what I call the “UPPA Wall” and can truly move the claim no further is, under those circumstances, likely their best first option.  That assumes that a PA is willing to take on the claim.  

The problem arising out of that is however, P&C insurance knows – as they knew full well when they first dreamed up UPPA, and as I mentioned previously, that the majority of residential insurance claims fall under the $35k mark.  They also knew and know that, not all, but, most PA’s will generally pass on those $35k and under claims.  Because UPPA prohibits restoration contractors from negotiating on behalf of their insured customers, those $35k and under insured customers only other options are then, often months beyond when the claim should have settled, to hire and pay an appraiser or attorney to attempt to move the claim forward to full and final payment, or, simply accept the insurance companies low ball settlement offer and move on.  It would then appear that when restoration contractors come across those $35k and under claims, they and their insured customers have, indeed, hit the “UPPA Wall” and are, at that point, pretty much stuck.   

Insurance companies are, these days, continually complaining of increased claims costs and are therefore, continually decreasing claims payouts while dramatically increasing their premium rates to cover those alleged increased costs.  What’s really behind the increased claims costs?  Is it because contractors were, and PA’s and insured’s plaintiff’s attorneys are charging too much?   As I see it, that is not the case at all.  Over the past twelve or so years, more and more insured policyholders are becoming better educated on the process and better educated on the fact that, when a storm does come through their area, the likelihood that their property suffered some damage is high.  With the increase in legitimate insurance covered claims, P&C insurance’s multi-billion dollar gravy train that they’ve been riding since the first P&C insurance policies were written, has started to erode.

In order to fight back against that, P&C insurance has indeed “upended that ancient social contract” and moved from being an industry that once actually served the public trust to one that instead, seeks to profit at the expense of the policyholders who put their trust in P&C insurance to deliver on their promises.  

The current state of the industry

As a result of UPPA and all of the other questionable machinations of the P&C insurance industry over the past few years, the storm damage restoration industry is indeed, in a bad place.  Because of that, moving insured property owners legitimate storm damage claims from filed to file at real, true, and accurate (RTA) free market pricing has become harder than ever and who wants that?  Life is too short to have to deal with all of the P&C insurance industry hoops and hurdles placed in your way in order to keep you down and make them more money.

In order for things to change, you’ve got to change

So, what is the key to overcoming that which has been getting in your way and blocking you from achieving and even exceeding your personal and business financial goals?  The answer is proven and advanced storm damage restoration contractor training that will teach you how to powerfully move those P&C insurance industry placed hoops and hurdles out of your way in short order.  In fact, with just what you have read and learned about UPPA from this treatise, you now know more about the claims process than all storm damage contractors who have ever been in the business (except the ones I’ve already trained). 

You also know more about the claims process than 100% of every field, staff, or desk adjuster on the planet.  All you need to do now is get the full training program in your hands so you’ll know how defeat their specious arguments, their low ball XM8 or Symbility pricing, and their false claim denials which will then allow you to close out more of your customers insurance covered storm damage claims at full real, true, and accurate free market pricing in record time and with appropriate cumulatively calculated GC O&P.  

On a side note, at this point in time, Diane and all of the other top roofing, siding, and related building product distribution company leaders have been made aware of the availability of the training program.  All have also been shown how by getting the training into the hands of their thousands of storm damage restoration contractor customers who spend billions of dollars every year to purchase roofing, siding, and related building products from them, they’ll be able to recapture the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars worth of building product orders they’ve been missing out on every year because of UPPA and a serious lack of top level claims process training. 

I am confident that one or more of them will see the light and break free from the cabal and, as a result, and to their great benefit (tax and otherwise), make the wise decision to make the program available to their valued restoration contractor customers on a massive scale. 

To learn more about the training program and how to order it, visit my 3RSystems, LLC training overview and offer site through the 3RSystems.com link shown below. 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Larry Burtis – President, 3RSystems, LLC

 

 

Find your future and your fortune at:

www.3RSystems.com

  

 

STORM DAMAGE RESTORATION CONTRACTORS

After viewing the 3RSystems, LLC training overview and offer site, ask your favorite building products distribution company if they are offering the program to their storm damage restoration contractor customers.  If they say they are not, don’t hesitate to ask them, why not.

 

 

 

 

Because the issues discussed in this treatise are of such a serious nature and concern, not only to investors and shareholders, but the general public as well, 3RSystems, LLC will be providing copies of this presentation to various financial publications for their review and consideration.  Disclaimer:  Larry Burtis is also a Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota licensed Public Insurance adjuster.  Larry also conducts public adjusting in South Dakota, a state that does not require PA licensing.  Larry believes that, whenever possible, property damage insurance claims should be settled without Public Adjuster, appraiser, or attorney involvement.   

 

Copyright © 1996 – 2024 3RSystems, LLC All rights reserved