Raymond A. Altieri, Jr., CPPA
President & CEO
Altieri Transco American Claims
Recommendations:
I believe you are on the right track in trying to bring this situation under better control because it has
been a problem for decades. Currently, insurance disaster restoration contractors are allowed to
outline their contractual promise of performance in very general terms. Because of this, insurance
disaster restoration contractors are allowed to persuade unsuspecting homeowners to sign legally
binding contracts, at all hours of the night and day. Generally, these contracts only impose loosely
worded obligations on the performance of that disaster restoration contractor while they securely lock
in payment.
Conversely, prior to offering a contract for a homeowner’s signature, the disaster restoration contractor
should be required to outline for the consumer: costs of the job, quality of the materials, with
timeframes and deadlines which they must work under to be paid whether they come recommended by
the carrier or not. Surely, no person would contract with a home builder to build a new house that was
anything less protective. Consider this: without specific performance requirements demonstrated in the
contract, the contractor is assigned all the insurance proceeds through the contract, creating every
incentive to repair the home as inexpensively as possible to increase the profit margin for that job.
Here’s an absurd comparison: Would the State of Florida feel comfortable allowing public adjusters to
quote policyholders a contractually binding to-be-determined fee percentage after the claim settlement
was achieved? Of course not. But that is the environment the disaster restoration contractor takes
advantage of every day by calculating the price at the end of their work not before.
Because of the immediate, emergency need after a loss for some of the work performed, perhaps an
answer is the separation between defined parameters of temporary mitigation contractor work versus
permanent actual repair construction. Emergency board up and water extraction will always be
necessary. A distinction can be made between this service and that of the full rebuild which typically
should be a decision made months away from the date of the event after homeowners know how much
money they have to rebuild.
This format would alleviate the concern of the mitigation people who are required to perform their
work immediately and wait for payment from an insurance policy later.
The emergency service-mitigation contractor could be allowed to contract immediately with the needy
homeowner in this general format. The disaster restoration contractor for the full rebuild contract
would be required to present a more intricate contract as outlined above. This process would allow the
homeowner the time to be relieved of the pressure of making a full rebuild decision on the spot and
assigning all of their insurance proceeds to a contractor, moments after suffering a loss.
In any event I greatly appreciate the work you are doing and look forward to helping anyway that I can.