Not all insurance adjusters are bad apples. However - All too often construction business owners [insured clients] can be unfairly misled by an insurance adjuster, with the intent of the adjuster being to try to raise doubt regarding the trustworthiness of the contractor.
Simply Educating your client with appropriate documentation before unfair adjuster influence, can make the difference for you to keep your fair market share.
This document can be used to help insured clients understand that they are pre-paying for (your) potential general overhead costs, and your [10%] gross profit costs, no matter if only a roof is damaged, or many components are damaged.
Fairmarket laws, if I may ask how does this document benefit me to get OH&P from the insurance company since they are the ones paying the policy holder and I am getting paid from the policy holder. New to business and just trying to understand.
Huh? How does this possibly indicate that GCO&P is owed if only a roof is damaged? Of course GCO&P is going to be incurred and payable under a policy if you have a total loss and it costs $10m to rebuild the building. But its not going to be incurred if there is nothing more than hail damage to three tab shingles and its a $15k roof replacement job. Why would the insurance company owe it then? So you can pocket the difference above your real cost or perhaps so the homeowner can buy a new TV? It’s this type of ridiculous entitlement, lets rip off the insurance company thinking that is causing bogus claims to be filed and driving up my insurance rates
Some construction business owners don’t realize that the financial baseline for replacement costs of structures starts with a prospective general contractor’s (O&P) costs for replacement of a structure. The document’s second paragraph clearly explains that market fact.
Partial losses to a structure do not diminish that financial equation. Financial Losses that only affect a roofing system, or any other single trade work, are general contractor valued losses. If an adjuster, or anyone else, does not understand that basic economic fact, they can research it even further, and see that it is true.
But it isn’t true. And your logic is flawed. My premiums are also calculated based on my potentially incurring additional living expense when I am displaced from my home after a loss. However, if I decide to stay in my home and not incur any such expense I don’t get it anyway. I could go on and on with examples. My premiums include my roof replacement cost. Do I get a new roof if my toilet overflows and floods my basement? Of course not. I get the costs I actually incur that are reasonably necessary to restore me to where I was before the loss. That’s it. Anything more…such as GCO&P when one isn’t involved…creates a financial windfall. That is not what my insurance is intended to provide. As I said in my first response, this entitlement mentality and desire to use insurance as a slot machine to generate cash is at the core of my increasing rates and higher deductibles.
ALE is totally separate indemnification coverage - and is not based on a prospective general contractors’ replacement costs of a given structure. The financial baseline for replacing a structure is not a plumbing contractor’s business model. A prospective general contractors’ replacement cost includes the roofing system, and when only it alone is damaged by a covered event, it is owed for.
You do not charge consumers for prospective general contractors business models to replace their structure, and then dissect a physical/financial loss to reflect general contractors specialty sub-contractors costs only, and not reap illegal windfall profit along the way.
While I will agree whole heartedly with fairmarketlaws. You know what they say? Never take legal advice from a roofer!