Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Your Cart   |   Sign In   |   Register
Legislation / Regulation
Moderator(s):
Page 1 of 1
Forum Actions

Topics   Replies Score Author Latest Post
Florida DFS Withdraws Proposed Adjuster Ethics Rule Revision! 0 James W. Greer United Response Gets Results. Early this morning, the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Agent & Agency Services, provided Notice of Withdrawal of its proposed amendments to Rules 69B-220.051 and 69B-220.201, Florida Administrative Code, relating to adjuster conduct and ethical requirements.It is doubtful that there has ever been a more united and passionate response to any proposed rule change than that which the DFS experienced since it's initial surprise announcement in February 2010. Claims adjusters (company, independent and public), their employers, and numerous local and national insurance industry trade groups came together in July and voiced their strenuous objections to the Department's attempt to correct a number of service-related issues that still remain from the 2004-2005 hurricane seasons. After two formal rule workshops, an administrative challenge filed by the Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (FAPIA), and additional feedback and discussion between the WCCP and PCCP Assocations, the Property & Casualty Insurers Association of America, the Florida Insurance Council, and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the DFS has decided to leave the Ethics Rule(s) intact.In a statement made in the July 30th workshop, Team Leader Eric Purvis admitted that they were surprised at the very obvious "passion" that these proposed changes have evoked across the claims community. Sometimes it's the passion that gets the job done.We will continue our vigil to watch out for and represent the interests of the claims community. It's what we do.Congratulations, everyone, for a job well done!James W. Greer, CPCU Executive Director/WCCP Association (800) 642-7774 Email: jim@ae21.com
by James W. Greer
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
UPDATE: Industry Groups Testify on Florida Adjuster Rule Revisions 0 James W. Greer The Friday, July 30th Rule workshop was attended by some of Florida’s most influential trade associations for the purpose of discussing various proposed rule revisions governing Emergency Licensing, Conduct of Public Adjusters and Public Adjuster Apprentices, and the Adjuster Code of Ethics. Leading the testimony was James W. Greer, CPCU, President of Florida’s Association of Property & Casualty Claims Professionals (PCCP) and Executive Director of Florida’s Association of Workers’ Compensation Claims Professionals (WCCP). Addressing the interests of more than 76,200 Florida-licensing resident and non-resident adjusters, Mr. Greer cited strenuous objection to the addition of Rule 69B-220.201(3)(f) and stressed the need for integrity of the Code of Ethics as a standard of behavior. According to Greer, procedural rules such as that provided are best [and currently] addressed in Florida’s Unfair Claims Practices Statutes. Mr. Greer also asked if the rule changes were specifically aimed at issues arising out of the public adjuster community or all adjusters. DFS officials cited problems with both company, independent and public adjusters, but did admit that the problems mostly arise out of difficulties experienced after Florida’s 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. Additional testimony was provided by Liz Reynolds, CPCU, NAMIC Southeast State Affairs Manager, Sam Miller, Executive Vice President, Florida Insurance Council, William H. Stander, Assistant Vice President, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. All trade associations supported Greer’s testimony, citing the specific requirements of F.S. §626.9541 and F.S. §627.71031, although some went even further, objecting the use of certain terms and grammatical construction in many of the ethical rules that have been in existence for years and citing vagueness, ambiguity and the potential for abuse and litigation. Tim Jesaitis, of the Law Offices of Tim Jesaitis, P.A., offered insightful testimony on the impact of proposed rule 69B: 220.201(3)(f) rule on workers’ compensation, citing the uniqueness of workers’ compensation and who might be considered "parties” to the contract or "clients”. DFS officials seemed genuinely interested in the testimony offered, and on numerous occasions referenced the very obvious "passion” that these proposed changes have evoked across the claims community. The record for comment will close on August 12, 2010. Unfortunately, it appears resolution of these issues will be further delayed as the Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters has filed an administrative challenge to the Department’s authority to make such rule changes. The hearing before a Florida Administrative Law Judge will be held August 25th, 2010.
by James W. Greer
Thursday, August 5, 2010
New regs for adjusters 1 Marcia A. Gano Hi Marci, Hope you're doing well.  I actually worked with a consultant in Texas trying to develop just such a limited "defense only" adjuster E&O product, and we even had an underwriter who would have been willing to consider such a product, but only if written and offered through an "educational association" (i.e. the WCCP and PCCP). Unfortunately, in our market research, we found that most people we asked didn't think there was a need and would not have been willing to pay for it. We did find, however, a disparity between "carrier/staff" adjusters and "independent" adjusters.  Most carrier adjusters felt that it was unnecessary because they believed their employer would defend them.  A great number of the independents we queried were most interested.  Unfortunately, for a realistic product offering, we would need to be able to show the underwriter the potential for a very sigificant number of policies. It is something I still believe in, and would be willing to resume such a project if the attitudes change.  (Of course, one good case where the involved carrier does not defend the adjuster would probably change a lot of minds.  I wonder if the involved adjuster in Emma Murray's case had to pay defense costs, or for that matter, the case manager in Aguilera?) I know that even notaries are able to secure bonds, and even lost cost E&O policies through the National Notary Association.  And I'm sure there are others.  But there would need to be a willing market. What would the cost be?  Probably minimal, but at least around $100 a year, more or less. Just thought you would like to know that there is someone out here who agrees. Jim
by James W. Greer
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Proposed changes to the FL Adjuster Code of Ethics 0 April Boyd We would love to hear the thoughts of the adjusting community on the proposed changes to the Adjuster's Code of Ethics. July 19, 2010 To All Florida-Licensed Adjusters and Their Employers: Many of you may not be aware of attempts by the DFS to make significant changes to the Adjuster Code of Ethics by adding specific time frames for claims performance. In February of this year, the Department modified the Code by adding the following to Rule 69B:220-201: (f) The adjuster shall provide a complete written claim status update to the client no less than every thirty (30) calendar days beginning from the contract date and shall document the claim file accordingly. The claim status must include any communication received from the insurance company regarding the claim. (g) The adjuster shall respond to the client's written request for a claim status in no less than ten (10) business days from the date of receipt and shall document the file accordingly. Also note that 69B-220.201(2)(b) states: (b) A breach of any provision of this rule constitutes an unfair claims settlement practice. On behalf on the nearly 25,000 members and constituents of the Associations of WCCP and PCCP, we immediately brought this to the attention of numerous carriers, Third Party Administrators, and other interested parties. On March 14, 2010, with the assistance of the Florida Insurance Council and others, the WCCP and PCCP Associations objected to such change. A copy of that objection included here. On June 23rd, 2010 the WCCP and PCCP Associations received notification of additional changes resulting from feedback provided in March, 2010. Included here are both the Original Proposed Changes and the Revised Proposed Changes received on June 23rd. Relevant changes are highlighted in yellow. It appears that the DFS did remove one of the objectionable sections. They deleted the language previously cited under (f) and replaced and modified the language previously cited under (g), which now states: (f) The adjuster shall respond with specific information to a written or electronic request for claims status from a party to the insurance policy or the party's designated representative, in no less than fifteen (15) days from the date of the request and shall document the file accordingly. If you read the entire Notice of Proposed Rule Change, you'll get the clear impression that the bulk of the initiative is geared toward Public Adjusters, and may in fact be directed at the property line of business. However, such a rule change would affect all adjusters and all lines of business. We are not convinced that there is a need for such a requirement, nor are we convinced that any particular adjuster group has been guilty of claims practices that would require creation of a "rule” to address such a problem. Yet this issue notwithstanding, placement of such a rule in the Adjuster Code of Ethics is totally inappropriate. The Code of Ethics is meant to address behaviors...right and wrong...and they are subjective in nature. One mess up does not create an unethical practice. However, with such a rule, one mess up would automatically constitute a violation of unfair claims practice and (ignoring the issue of "damages”) a violation of law that establishes "negligence per se”. Many adjusters, carriers and administrators have been involved in, or have been the subject of, lawsuits by insureds or parties to the insurance contract. Some of these parties are not the ones with whom your companies originally contracted (e.g. an insured's bad faith UM, PIP or Property claim assigned to a plaintiff's attorney, or the "3rd party beneficiary” of the workers' compensation contract who may arguably be a party to the contract). Many of us in Florida's property, casualty and workers' compensation industry have been fortunate to serve as expert witnesses for carriers, administrators, and policyholders. We see allegations spawned by rule violations that create terrible exposures when there was really no vice intended. I can assure you that this subsection (f) is not only inappropriate, but is dangerous. However, notwithstanding the intent and potential relevancy of these proposed changes to claims practice in Florida, placement in the rule governing Ethical Requirements is inappropriate. These proposed changes are not guides for appropriate or inappropriate adjusting behavior(s); rather, they deal with matter of private contract (and may well infringe on the rights of contract between parties), performance measurement, and time requirements for such performance. If indeed there is a legitimate reason for such guidelines, perhaps they should be considered in another area, such as the Unfair Claims Practices Act. I ask that as many of you as possible show your support for having this requirement pulled from the Code by either writing to Mr. Mathew Guy and Mr. Eric Purvis at the addresses below: Eric Purvis Florida Department of Financial Services Division of Agent & Agency Services Larson Building, Room 412 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0320 Email: Eric.Purvis@MyFloridaCFO.com Matthew Guy Communications Coordinator Florida Department of Financial Services Division of Agent & Agency Services Office of the Director Phone: 850.413.5418 Fax:850.922.3905 Matthew.Guy@MyFloridaCFO.com ...or by sending a delegate to the Friday, July 30th meeting in Tallahassee to be held at 10:00 a.m. in Room 116 of the J. Edwin Larson Building, 200 E. Gaines Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399 I would also ask that you forward this notice and request to any other influential members of the claims community, i.e. executives, managers, et al. who will be exposed to the dangers of such a rule. You may access the full text of the current notice via the following link: http://www.MyFloridaCFO.com/Agents/Industry/Laws-Rules/docs/Notice_Dev_69B-220_Adjuster.pdf James W. Greer, CPCU Executive Director/WCCP Association (800) 642-7774 Email: jim@ae21.com  
by April Boyd
Tuesday, July 20, 2010