Allstate Accuses La. Couple of Misrepresenting Claim after Katrina
Texas / South Central News • April 6, 2007
Allstate Insurance Co. says a Louisiana couple misrepresented their claim after Hurricane Katrina damaged their home and is asking a federal judge to throw out their lawsuit against the insurer ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: Allstate's Double Speak - Double Standards
Posted On: April 12, 2007, 2:06 pm CDT
Posted By: Roger Poe
Comment:
No (for profit) business survives without making sound, reasonable/fair, and rational, profits.
The 49% (mark-up/profit) factor, supposedly, accounts for 29% subcontractor O&P costs & 20% Primary/General contractor O&P costs.
A historical construction business investment markup and profit factor, for [sub&primary] contractors with viable business models, is somewhere around the 59% mark according to business experts like Michale Stone, author of "Mark-Up and Profit". Other experts agree.
Insurers construction estimating cost data can help anticipate (actuarially/statiscally) dollar amounts, [premiums], that reflect a residential or commercial structures' estimated replacement costs (in a given area).
Appropriate premiums that account for (59%ish)subtrade business mark-up and profit AND (59%ish) general/primary contractor business mark-up and profit would not be innappropriate premium values, would they?
Partial or Full structral loss claim values should reflect realistic/actual pre-anticipated construction component/s loss value already pre-paid for by the general public, no?
Since a home/business owner (policy holder) prepays dollar values for the anticipated primary-general contractor who can replace the property AND subsequent subtrade contractors, a SINGLE construction trade component loss(i.e.,framing, roofing, carpeting, painting, drywall, plumbing, etc.) via wind, hail, debris, etc. type damage, intrinsically contains primary/general contractor AND subtrade contractor [construction business costs] values in it.
HOW some so-called loss claim "adjusters" improperly assess damage and improperly estimate downward/omit the ACTUAL and FULL dollar loss value of a covered structures' physical component/s loss VALUES can create "contingent" illicit/illegal profits* for insurers, no?
*Texas Department of Insurance Bulletin B0045-98.
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com
P.S. Allstate even claims to their clients that damage to their structure has to have multiple trades involvement to repair a structure before a primary-general contractor is "necessary".
This appears to be a huge and stealth-like financial sham on the general public, and a extremely unfair market manipulation move to try to force general contactors out of the single construction component loss claim repair/replacement market.
Charge premiums for anticipated primary-general contractor involvement, then tell a home/business owner they don't deserve one when one or two trades are needed for repairs/restoration, is an illegal financial indemnification "bait and switch" game, no?
Subject: RE: Allstate's Double Speak - Double Standards
The 49% (mark-up/profit) factor, supposedly, accounts for 29% subcontractor O&P costs & 20% Primary/General contractor O&P costs.
A historical construction business investment markup and profit factor, for [sub&primary] contractors with viable business models, is somewhere around the 59% mark according to business experts like Michale Stone, author of "Mark-Up and Profit". Other experts agree.
Insurers construction estimating cost data can help anticipate (actuarially/statiscally) dollar amounts, [premiums], that reflect a residential or commercial structures' estimated replacement costs (in a given area).
Appropriate premiums that account for (59%ish)subtrade business mark-up and profit AND (59%ish) general/primary contractor business mark-up and profit would not be innappropriate premium values, would they?
Partial or Full structral loss claim values should reflect realistic/actual pre-anticipated construction component/s loss value already pre-paid for by the general public, no?
Since a home/business owner (policy holder) prepays dollar values for the anticipated primary-general contractor who can replace the property AND subsequent subtrade contractors, a SINGLE construction trade component loss(i.e.,framing, roofing, carpeting, painting, drywall, plumbing, etc.) via wind, hail, debris, etc. type damage, intrinsically contains primary/general contractor AND subtrade contractor [construction business costs] values in it.
HOW some so-called loss claim "adjusters" improperly assess damage and improperly estimate downward/omit the ACTUAL and FULL dollar loss value of a covered structures' physical component/s loss VALUES can create "contingent" illicit/illegal profits* for insurers, no?
*Texas Department of Insurance Bulletin B0045-98.
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com
P.S. Allstate even claims to their clients that damage to their structure has to have multiple trades involvement to repair a structure before a primary-general contractor is "necessary".
This appears to be a huge and stealth-like financial sham on the general public, and a extremely unfair market manipulation move to try to force general contactors out of the single construction component loss claim repair/replacement market.
Charge premiums for anticipated primary-general contractor involvement, then tell a home/business owner they don't deserve one when one or two trades are needed for repairs/restoration, is an illegal financial indemnification "bait and switch" game, no?