shalackin said:

---

@DadAg10

So because your overhead and profit margins are higher than some of your competitors, you feel you should be paid more?

It is about the policy. The policy states that clients have the right to choose the contractor they wish to do the work. And we, as the contractor, have the right to charge what feel is right for us. Technically, when insurance companies try to force pricing on contractors, it is called price fixing, which is a felony.



And here is the other part. We spend an infinite amount more time on insurance claims dealing with insurance companies, who underpay 100% of the time without fail. So "market value" of a retail claim is very different than insurance, just merely due to the resources it takes to complete the job.

---

The policy states that they pay for replacement cost (there are also ACV policies). So if insurance determines the replacement cost is $15K, and if 9 roofers will replace for $15K, and 1 roofer will replace for $20, what is the replacement cost?

The homeowner could certainly choose the $20K option and pay the difference, or they could select the lessor option. You certainly could walk away if you won't do the job for $15K or negotiate with the homeowner for the difference.

I guess you would also have the option of only working non-insurance deals if insurance is too time consuming.



Just for fun:

Tips when hiring a roofer.

"Only a licensed public insurance adjuster is allowed to work with an insurance company on behalf of a homeowner. A public adjuster, hired by a homeowner, takes a percentage of proceeds if he or she can help retrieve more money.

Roofers may not negotiate a claim or interpret an insurance policy. They do it every day, but it's against state law."

If justified by the contractor of choice, then the RCV in your example is $20K. It doesn't matter what anyone else can do it for. But this is what insurance companies want you to believe. And I can easily go get just as many comparative bids as them showing $20K in that situation. So as you can see, they can't use policy to get around it without opening themselves up to quite a bit of liability. But they try, just like their MRP programs with companies like Mad Sky. They are basically price fixing criminals trying to push contracting companies to the bottom.

Just for fun.... UPPA is only really being enforced in Texas and Florida. Other states are starting to try, like Georgia, but ultimately it is not an offense that can be proven. There are typically 6 things that have to be violated in order to be unlawfully practicing. The burden to prove all 6 of those is very difficult. Other than Lon Smith, which is not really relevant to your argument here, the only thing UPPA is for, is to be used as a scare tactic and bullying method by the insurance companies. And it is working. Many contractors are scared of it. It will eventually get thrown out as unconstitutional.

I am not in Texas, sadly because I bleed Texas, so I essentially don't care about it. At least at this point. Also, Assignment of Claims are universally accepted, except for Texas, so we can just have the insured assign us the claim and we can do anything we want, other than file for bad faith. So UPPA can stick it.