storm desmond - insurance claim

creaghadoos

as the title suggests, storm desmond had a bit of craic around the front of my house yesterday,
going to take in the region of 3000euro to sort.
has anyone got any experience of claiming from aviva home insurance?
do they make you jump through hoops?
would i be better to just sort it all out myself?

any help or advice would be greatly appreciated

To Elland Back

You pay your premium for this type of event. Get a detailed estimate to let you decide. Check your paperwork, some insurers have no claim discounts, similar to motor insurance

creaghadoos

spoke with aviva there
they have appointed cunningham lynsey as loss adjusters, so far all seems nice and ammicable.
watch this space

kkelliher

get three quotes from local builders for the repairs and submit them all. Loss adjusters may try and use book rates from a computer to deal with the cost but if you show real life local cost, they will have no option but to deal with them. Also remember you are covered to put the property back to the way it was pre damage so don't just get a patch done etc if the damage is roof related.

coylemj

creaghadoos wrote: »

spoke with aviva there
they have appointed cunningham lynsey as loss adjusters, so far all seems nice and ammicable.
watch this space

The loss adjusters' business model is based on them keeping the lid on your claim, they get rewarded for cutting costs by the insurance company which engages them. So while you should be civil in your dealings with them, you need to have the attitude that they are the enemy because their interests and yours are diametrically opposite.

Chris_5339762

Bear in mind your insurance company (indeed all insurance companies) may have clauses that you can never get flood cover again.

To Elland Back

coylemj wrote: »

The loss adjusters' business model is based on them keeping the lid on your claim, they get rewarded for cutting costs by the insurance company which engages them. So while you should be civil in your dealings with them, you need to have the attitude that they are the enemy because their interests and yours are diametrically opposite.

That's a terrible comment. My experience is that loss adjusters appointed by insurers are more than helpful to policyholders. Yes, their job is to verify the items claimed for and most disputes come from unrealistic expectations from policyholders.

It is their job to assess the items the client has submitted in their claim. However, many will point out additional damages the the client may not have spotted. I would never consider them as 'the enemy'. Give a lad a chance before you condemn him

AudreyHepburn

coylemj wrote: »

The loss adjusters' business model is based on them keeping the lid on your claim, they get rewarded for cutting costs by the insurance company which engages them. So while you should be civil in your dealings with them, you need to have the attitude that they are the enemy because their interests and yours are diametrically opposite.

This is the exact opposite of the attitude you should have towards the loss adjuster and will in no way help your case.

The loss adjuster is a neutral party, he works neither for you nor your insurance company. His job is to adjust to the claim up or down as necessary, he is not out to screw you.

In the vast majority of case he will indeed adjust the claim down because 9 times out of 10 the policyholder has exaggerated the claim, sometimes knowingly sometimes not.

OP you best bet is just to speak to your Insurer directly, they are in the best position to advise you what their methods are.

coylemj

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In the vast majority of case he will indeed adjust the claim down ....

Which is what the insurance company pays him to do.

Q.E.D.

To Elland Back

coylemj wrote: »

Which is what the insurance company pays him to do.

Q.E.D.

He is not paid to do that. He is paid to adjust it accurately using his technical knowledge. The poster above explained why it MIGHT get adjusted down. The policy holder can always challenge any findings with their own loss assespr

UrbanFox

I have had a few dealings with Aviva over the years and found them to be reasonable to deal with.

The loss adjuster is not the enemy nor a hit-man.

That said, the onus of proof rests with the policyholder. You must prove the validity of your claim in terms of causation and quantum. This is not onerous. Don't go racing off getting estimates left right and centre until you have spoken to the adjuster and established what they suggest or require you to do.

The adjuster is not the final arbiter. If a suggested settlement proposal is not fair and reasonable you have options in relation to your policy rights.

witchgirl26

I wouldn't think of the adjuster as the enemy. My mam had some damage to her roof last year after a storm & the adjuster couldn't have been nicer. He adjusted the claim up as there was more damage than she thought & advised on how many quotes to get for the work etc.

creaghadoos

loss adjuster came and gave me no hassle at all. have to say top marks to aviva,
fears were totally unfounded,
i will update when all is sorted,

To Elland Back

creaghadoos wrote: »

loss adjuster came and gave me no hassle at all. have to say top marks to aviva,
fears were totally unfounded,
i will update when all is sorted,

Delighted to hear you had a positive experience during difficult circumstances. Don't forget, the loss adjuster is an independent professional separate to your insurer. If he pissed off policyholders, Aviva and other insurers wouldn't put business his way

creaghadoos

To Elland Back wrote: »

Delighted to hear you had a positive experience during difficult circumstances. Don't forget, the loss adjuster is an independent professional separate to your insurer. If he pissed off policyholders, Aviva and other insurers wouldn't put business his way

i was told by aviva at the start that he is employed to best represent the interests of the insurance company, fairly within strict guidlines

To Elland Back

creaghadoos wrote: »

i was told by aviva at the start that he is employed to best represent the interests of the insurance company, fairly within strict guidlines

You and the general public, generally, have no idea how strict those guidelines actually are. The 'best interests' of Aviva include looking after their customers as best they can.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

To Elland Back

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Obeys them to do what exactly?

NUTLEY BOY

The loss adjuster is engaged by the insurers. The insurers pay the loss adjusters fee. This does not make the adjuster a hired gun. There are professional standards / compliance requirements applicable to adjusters and insurers.

If I engage a consultant surgeon to examine a plaintiff medically I have to pay his fee. His medical assessment is independent. If I call him in evidence he will certainly be a defence witness but that does not impugn his independence.

kkelliher

As someone who has worked as a loss adjuster (in well over 1000 property claims) I can state that yes you work independently to a point but when it comes to quantum (putting the value on the repairs) the majority of insurance companies now dictate the values that you can offer which is not an independent assessment.

The majority of insurance companies now operate price book systems where the measurements are put into a computer and out pops the repair value. In my opinion it goes completely against the principal of insurance cover and takes no account of actual real life costs to get a builder in to fix as a builder in a house damage scenario will price mainly on time and materials, whereas the insurance companies databases work on m2 and the like. I have seen policyholders submit 3 genuine quotes from local builders and still receive offers lower than the lowest. This is widespread and is a major issue with current adjustment.

gaz wac

kkelliher wrote: »

The majority of insurance companies now operate price book systems where the measurements are put into a computer and out pops the repair value. .

I used a third party company to deal with my insurance company for my last two claims (large damage), Last claim was about 4/5 years ago and the two assessors fought over every little thing, in a messing kinda way, give and take from both sides. so with this new policy, is there no need to use them in the future ? cheers

kkelliher

gaz wac wrote: »

I used a third party company to deal with my insurance company for my last two claims (large damage), Last claim was about 4/5 years ago and the two assessors fought over every little thing, in a messing kinda way, give and take from both sides. so with this new policy, is there no need to use them in the future ? cheers

In my view the way the industry as a whole is setup is a complete mess and is all but, regulated fraud. You have insurance companies on one side using rates from a computer to cost work with no account taken of the actual cost of the specific project and you have assessors on the other side who generally (not always but in my experience the majority do) exaggerate the value of the claim knowing the insurance company will want to cut it down so everyone has a warm and fuzzy feeling at the end. It makes for lots of dispute and argument in between. I was able to agree a very high % of claims directly with homeowners for exactly the value they were looking for or where not, I would contact their builder and negotiate with them. That is the way the system should work. There should not be a need for third party representation in a claim system if the system is fair.

NUTLEY BOY

kkelliher wrote: »

As someone who has worked as a loss adjuster (in well over 1000 property claims) I can state that yes you work independently to a point but when it comes to quantum (putting the value on the repairs) the majority of insurance companies now dictate the values that you can offer which is not an independent assessment.

The majority of insurance companies now operate price book systems where the measurements are put into a computer and out pops the repair value. In my opinion it goes completely against the principal of insurance cover and takes no account of actual real life costs to get a builder in to fix as a builder in a house damage scenario will price mainly on time and materials, whereas the insurance companies databases work on m2 and the like. I have seen policyholders submit 3 genuine quotes from local builders and still receive offers lower than the lowest. This is widespread and is a major issue with current adjustment.

That makes for troubling reading.

The practice described seems to flout the basic principles of contract law and certainly perverts the idea of indemnity.

I am surprised that this has not made it's way to the FSOB by way of a complaint by now. Mind you, if the policyholders don't know about it...............

To Elland Back

Perhaps it is on account of the practice builders have had for years of inflating estimates for claims. Once a homeowner asks for a written estimate, the builder knows it is an insurance job. I've dealt with many such outrageous situations

Bottom line is that the policyholder is entitled to indemnity and have their property reinstated. The claim settlement offer must reflect that, but that does not mean insurers have to agree any old estimate the policyholder sends in

kkelliher

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

That makes for troubling reading.

The practice described seems to flout the basic principles of contract law and certainly perverts the idea of indemnity.

I am surprised that this has not made it's way to the FSOB by way of a complaint by now. Mind you, if the policyholders don't know about it...............

A lot of policy holders I have meet with this type of issue get to the point where they just want the claim resolved and they don't want to go down the ombudsman route. Statistically most household claims are low value <€3k so it takes alot of patience to take the issue further

kkelliher

To Elland Back wrote: »

Perhaps it is on account of the practice builders have had for years of inflating estimates for claims. Once a homeowner asks for a written estimate, the builder knows it is an insurance job. I've dealt with many such outrageous situations

Bottom line is that the policyholder is entitled to indemnity and have their property reinstated. The claim settlement offer must reflect that, but that does not mean insurers have to agree any old estimate the policyholder sends in

I am going to assume that you work for an insurance company. You might explain therefore as to why any old quote from a policyholder is not acceptable but any old value a preloaded computer system can throw out is an acceptable position? Insurance companies (I worked for them for over 7 years) love hiding behind the "entitled to indemnity and have their property reinstated". How can a property be reinstated to its pre claim position is a preloaded computer system costs, for example, all solid timber floors at the same value, all tiles at the same value etc etc.

I always found it odd/funny that the practice of insurance companies having panels and appointing contractors to carry out repairs as opposed to cash settlements, has all but disappeared in the Irish Insurance Claims market. It would never have anything to do with the fact that the true cost of repairs was not acceptable to them and cash settlements offered them more negotiating power........Its a 2 way street but all the power lies on one side

To Elland Back

kkelliher wrote: »

I am going to assume that you work for an insurance company.

I used to work for an insurance company. Spent 18 years with one and settled household claims with policyholders in their homes, not with the aid of a computer. Shocking the amount of times builders inflated claims when it was for insurance. I must add, it was usually for their gain and not the policyholder.

Spent the following 15 years working for a broker, the last 2 have been in claims. I still see the inflated estimates and I also see the system insurers use that you refer to. The correct value of the claim probably rests in the middle