TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- VIDEO: House Fire in Brampton, Ontario, Canada (Sept 11, 2011)
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy Originally posted @ http://www.thestar.com/news/article...mpton-fire?bn=1 13-year-old charged with arson after Brampton fire A 13-year-old boy has been charged after a house in Brampton suffered significant damage in a fire on Sunday night. Police said they received a call at 7:15 p.m. Sunday when the home near Bovaird Dr. and Hwy. 410 was set ablaze. Police arrested the teen on Monday and charged him with arson and disregard for human life. No one was injured in the fire and police have not released the cost of damage.

Nice find!

Also, ppl who are neighbours were posting on YouTube including the guys who let me jump their backyard fence which let me get back to my car... circumnavigating the police barricades.

quote:

Originally posted by kamil Keep thinking that. Also, do you work for an insurance company? You seem to defend these thieves for some reason. My parents are fighting with insurance right now. Our unit got burned to the ground because of the next door neighbors caught fire from inside and affected us as well as the unit next door. Now, to really spoil your fun and debunk your claims about insurance procedures, the insurance company is doing everything it can to not pay through and their original offer was significantly lower than what we were insured for. Theyve tried to find as many loopholes as possible NOT to give us the coverage we were paying for, and it got to the point where we hired a lawyer to take care of these f.uckers. But hey, you seem like you know better than people like me who get their shady treatment firsthand. Now take a seat.

I've been an insurance adjuster for over 15 years so I'm pretty sure I know how the claims business works. Trust me, insurance companies do not look for loopholes so they don't have to pay for things. Have you actually read through your policy to see what it actually covers. Most adjusters/insurance companies actually look for ways to pay claims. It usually costs less to find a way to pay a claim then it does to deny it.

It sounds like you are talking about a condo policy which means you have your own insurance plus the condo corp insurance plus the neighbour's insurance to deal with. This becomes complicate as there are certain things that the condo corp insurance is responsible for and your insurance isn't responsible for.

I see someone has embedded the video on another site.

http://statter911.com/2011/09/12/ra...ampton-ontario/

I noticed, though, that they barely have any info just like the Star post. Even on the Star post it's funny they didn't mention the address. You'd expect at least that from a newspaper reporter.

quote:

Originally posted by kamil But hey, you seem like you know better than people like me who get their shady treatment firsthand.

Yep, no doubt someone who's experience in insurance is listenting to his parents complain about their insurance claim definately knows much more about insurance then someone with a degree in insurance, licenced to handle claims in 9/10 provinces, has handled thousands of claims, and manages an office of claims adjusters... indeed, I bow to your superior knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced I've been an insurance adjuster for over 15 years so I'm pretty sure I know how the claims business works. Trust me, insurance companies do not look for loopholes so they don't have to pay for things. Have you actually read through your policy to see what it actually covers. Most adjusters/insurance companies actually look for ways to pay claims. It usually costs less to find a way to pay a claim then it does to deny it. It sounds like you are talking about a condo policy which means you have your own insurance plus the condo corp insurance plus the neighbour's insurance to deal with. This becomes complicate as there are certain things that the condo corp insurance is responsible for and your insurance isn't responsible for.

don't bother... he would never get it. we're crooks and the entire industry is entirely dedicated to screwing the insuring public. everyone would be much better off to just go bankrupt if their house burned to the ground or go on welfare if they got hurt in a car accident. fuck those insurance assholes, keeping people from financial ruin and underwriting the entire credit system.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard don't bother... he would never get it. we're crooks and the entire industry is entirely dedicated to screwing the insuring public. everyone would be much better off to just go bankrupt if their house burned to the ground or go on welfare if they got hurt in a car accident. fuck those insurance assholes, keeping people from financial ruin and underwriting the entire credit system.

Just imagine a world without insurance.....we would all be hunters and gatherers again running around in self made clothing with sticks for weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Just imagine a world without insurance.....we would all be hunters and gatherers again running around in self made clothing with sticks for weapons.

No worries, when the collapse happens insurance won't be anything important.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard don't bother... he would never get it. we're crooks and the entire industry is entirely dedicated to screwing the insuring public. everyone would be much better off to just go bankrupt if their house burned to the ground or go on welfare if they got hurt in a car accident. fuck those insurance assholes, keeping people from financial ruin and underwriting the entire credit system.

You are crooks, with no integrity at all. I'd feel sick and embarrassed having to work for scumbags.

But you guys are right, the customers experience with assholes trying to fuck us out of a service we payed for is worthless.

And no, its not a condo, its a commercial property.

quote:

Originally posted by kamil You are crooks, with no integrity at all. I'd feel sick and embarrassed having to work for scumbags. But you guys are right, the customers experience with assholes trying to fuck us out of a service we payed for is worthless. And no, its not a condo, its a commercial property.

I'd be more then happy to help educate you if you want to PM me a better description of what the issue is. The fact that its a commercial property makes things even more complicated then a condo.

Chem, Moral, can you just please pay out kamil's claim and we can all get along?

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced I'd be more then happy to help educate you if you want to PM me a better description of what the issue is. The fact that its a commercial property makes things even more complicated then a condo.

Serious question. One time our street flooded and most of the basements flooded with water. Most people had no problem with filing the claim and getting it paid. However, a lot of the companies denied to insure the homes after paying out the claim. Why is this? Too much risk so they say no?

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Just imagine a world without insurance.....we would all be hunters and gatherers again running around in self made clothing with sticks for weapons.

Imagine one? lol i LIVE in one
No one has any form of insurance on their homes in Croatia...
the only insurance anyone has is on their car since it's law.


But i do gotta say that we're not quite hunter-gatherers here...and i don't make my own clothing
But point well taken

quote:

Originally posted by TheVrk Imagine one? lol i LIVE in one No one has any form of insurance on their homes in Croatia... the only insurance anyone has is on their car since it's law. But i do gotta say that we're not quite hunter-gatherers here...and i don't make my own clothing But point well taken

Chem's looking big picture. Without insurance financial institutions wouldn't write mortgages or loans, credit card companies wouldn't extend credit, commercial property developers wouldn't build malls/skyscrapers/appartment buildings, mass manufacturing would largely shut down, etc. because those with capital would not be willing to take on the risk of unlimited liability or total financial ruin in the case of a large scale loss. Of course there would be some fabulously wealthy individuals that would take the risks but very few. The industrialized society requires insurance to function as it does. Property and automobile insurance are only a tiny fraction of the insurance industry.

quote:

Originally posted by Cro_Addict Serious question. One time our street flooded and most of the basements flooded with water. Most people had no problem with filing the claim and getting it paid. However, a lot of the companies denied to insure the homes after paying out the claim. Why is this? Too much risk so they say no?

Yes, it would have been based on a change in the risk rating for the properties. I suspect that the flooding highlighted problems with the storm water management in the area that were not rectified; subsequently, the actuarial calculations on the probability of another such event were changed and the properties became riskier to insure. In such cases the insurers will either a) increase premiums to account for the increased risk, b) decline to offer sewer back up coverage (assuming the losses were due to back up), c) decline to write the property all together. Also possible but less likely is that one insurance company (note; many companies operate multiple brands so one may not think it's the same company but it really is... Aviva for example operates as Aviva, Pilot, PC, Traders General, Elite, OTIP, and probably a few more I'm forgetting), realized from this event that they insure more properties in a small area then they would like. Having more properties in a small area increases the probability of suffering a large cumulative loss due to local events. Since insurance is based on spreading risk across a large area and group of people this sort of over representation in one area is a big problem for insurers. If that was the case then that insurer would likely look to reduce the number of properties they insure in the area. TDI and Chubb did this with Woodbridge and Maple after the tornadoes a few years back... because those two insurers tend to write a lot of university alumni and professional groups they found themselves over-represented in upper middle class neighbourhoods so they have been trying to lower that representation in the years since.

Just out of curiosity, who makes the ultimate decisions after the evaluators (or whatever the correct term is) make their assessment and initiate the next phase of the claim process?

quote:

Originally posted by The Ear Just out of curiosity, who makes the ultimate decisions after the evaluators (or whatever the correct term is) make their assessment and initiate the next phase of the claim process?

If by evaluators you mean appraisers/estimators then they don't make any decisions; rather, they make recommendations to adjusters.

Claims adjusters working for an insurance company have a set authority limit (usually): meaning they have autonomy to make decisions on any claims where the probable ultimate value is less then that authority. Generally, they will need to go to their supervisor or manager for approval on decisions for claims beyond that authority level. The supervisor will also have a set limit of authority, beyond that limit they have to go to their manager... the manager to the VP claims, VP claims to the CEO if a claim gets big enough.

Independent claims adjusters (those hired by an insurer on a single claim as opposed to being staff members) can either have a set authority or zero authority. In either event, they need to seek instructions from a claims examiner at the insurance company for any decisions on claims beyond their authority (if they have any).

In addition; most insurers have an oversight proceedure for the denial of claims. Usually, this involves the adjuster making a recommendation to their supervisor. The supervisor will then review the file and in some cases be able to make the decision, in others it needs to go further... either to a manager or a "claims committee" which is often a manager or two, the VP claims, VP of underwriting and the president of the company.

For my team (we are independent adjusters working for a small group of insurers); they have authority levels ranging from 30-50K, I have authority of 100K, and then I report to my principals (that's what we call the insurers) for anything beyond that. I used to work at an insurer where I had $75K, my manager had $150K, the director of claims had $500K, and the VP of claims had $10million authority... beyond that it went to the board of directors.

So, to answer the question of who makes the ultimate decisions... that depends on the structure of the insurer's authority system and the value of the claim.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard If by evaluators you mean appraisers/estimators then they don't make any decisions; rather, they make recommendations to adjusters. Claims adjusters working for an insurance company have a set authority limit (usually): meaning they have autonomy to make decisions on any claims where the probable ultimate value is less then that authority. Generally, they will need to go to their supervisor or manager for approval on decisions for claims beyond that authority level. The supervisor will also have a set limit of authority, beyond that limit they have to go to their manager... the manager to the VP claims, VP claims to the CEO if a claim gets big enough. Independent claims adjusters (those hired by an insurer on a single claim as opposed to being staff members) can either have a set authority or zero authority. In either event, they need to seek instructions from a claims examiner at the insurance company for any decisions on claims beyond their authority (if they have any). In addition; most insurers have an oversight proceedure for the denial of claims. Usually, this involves the adjuster making a recommendation to their supervisor. The supervisor will then review the file and in some cases be able to make the decision, in others it needs to go further... either to a manager or a "claims committee" which is often a manager or two, the VP claims, VP of underwriting and the president of the company. For my team (we are independent adjusters working for a small group of insurers); they have authority levels ranging from 30-50K, I have authority of 100K, and then I report to my principals (that's what we call the insurers) for anything beyond that. I used to work at an insurer where I had $75K, my manager had $150K, the director of claims had $500K, and the VP of claims had $10million authority... beyond that it went to the board of directors. So, to answer the question of who makes the ultimate decisions... that depends on the structure of the insurer's authority system and the value of the claim.

Thanks. I've always wondered about the procedures and structure. I've been fortunate enough to not need t omake a claim yet on anything. But it's always good to know the way things work in advance.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.