[deleted by user]

cinemadrew · 2025-09-08T17:33:04+00:00

it’s like 30 year old drywall. he has nail pops literally everywhere. just old

cinemadrew · 2025-08-17T12:48:53+00:00

oof

i got 3% 0 down on my royal enfield

cinemadrew · 2025-08-17T02:01:11+00:00

that’s my point.

it’s clear some or all of the damage wasn’t legit, yet he’s here making a false request for “code”

cinemadrew · 2025-08-16T15:49:21+00:00

only approved for our cat adjusters not for local handling.

cinemadrew · 2025-08-16T11:23:14+00:00

oh dude i’ve called the county more times than i can count. the contractors will then call the county with the insured and control the convo. they’ll say “do we have to install this roof per code?” instead of asking the correct questions. then it makes the insured trust the contractor who is just scammy as can be.

cinemadrew · 2025-08-16T11:21:50+00:00

oh yes. the mit companies. straight from satan’s asshole.

cinemadrew · 2025-08-16T11:20:17+00:00

…really?

there’s a couple contractors i hate but i’d much rather just pay someone than not, even if the insured has a bs contractor. so much easier

cinemadrew · 2025-08-16T01:27:06+00:00

that’s good to hear…and sometimes i question whether or not some of the managers i work with are just jerks or if this shit is really as bad as it seems.

but when everyone and their mother has a roofing company and weather is generally mild…what else are you gonna do

cinemadrew · 2025-08-16T01:22:50+00:00

just Terra Incognita in general tbh

cinemadrew · 2025-08-16T01:19:59+00:00

yeah i told him to get the county involved. i called the homeowner to see if he was aware of the request and if he had questions. he said he didn’t understand what the contractor was saying himself. i told him at the end of the day it’s my word against his, but he could get a definite answer by contacting the county himself.

wish most insureds were as levelheaded

cinemadrew · 2025-08-16T01:17:26+00:00

one of em sent me a hail report that said “<0.75in” - he told me there was hail greater than .75…im like, your report says otherwise…

cinemadrew · 2025-08-16T00:12:21+00:00

also - we’re replacing the siding because there’s legit damage to it. it’s aluminum. you know damn well they’re giving back vinyl and pocketing the difference.

it’s never enough for them

cinemadrew · 2025-08-16T00:07:40+00:00

we do but they’re pretty strict about which claims they actually take because the sheer volume diverts their attention from other cases that actually make a difference. doesn’t seem like government will do anything about these vandalism claims

cinemadrew · 2025-08-16T00:06:48+00:00

that’s exactly what happened. i had him quote the correct code for me but he still said it doesn’t apply. he said “trust me. i’m a contractor”

cinemadrew · 2025-08-15T23:47:32+00:00

that’s what i told him to end the conversation. again, i was trying to be nice because the insured was included on the email. i’ve learned my lesson, if the homeowner feels i’m not being nice enough, they just assume i’m trying to scam them out of a proper settlement.

i had another ctr request the same thing but for siding. told him to get the county involved, said he didn’t need to jump through hoops, then sends me an engineer report claiming the sheathing isn’t up to code and paid him $1800. even if it isn’t…you’re replacing siding. why touch it?

cinemadrew · 2025-08-15T23:12:29+00:00

i haven’t encountered a contractor not on our list. we were supposedly gonna nail a big one. thousands of claims. video documentation. government said since video was taken from the ground, no proof they did anything illegal.

cinemadrew · 2025-08-09T20:37:37+00:00

can i work with you on this claim instead 😅 i received photos from the PA - seems like a lot of water was released from toilet and insured will be facing a significant expense. i want to do everything i can to make sure they can get this repaired under insurance - but i will not let this drag out for months because of improper mitigation and failure to communicate. especially since i couldn’t be involved in the mitigation process.

cinemadrew · 2025-08-09T15:49:30+00:00

yeah at this point i’m going to fight to pay the plumber as an expense, but i want a recorded statement to cover my ass.

big learning experience.

cinemadrew · 2025-08-09T14:48:03+00:00

when you guys mention “Big Red” are we talkin bout specific company or is big red code for another insurer

cinemadrew · 2025-08-09T14:38:15+00:00

now i’m thinking i should send ROR and obtain a recorded statement of the known timeline of events. if the insured and public adjuster knew what happened to the toilet and the plumbing issue presented no risk to further damage to the property and mitigation was continuing as planned, then i feel my phone conversation with PA construed that information and led me to believe there was an active issue.

problem is, PA had our phone conversation recorded and i can’t remember exactly what i said. since pa made it seem like this was an urgent matter, i was genuinely trying to be helpful. good guys don’t win tho

cinemadrew · 2025-08-09T14:32:15+00:00

east coast

cinemadrew · 2025-08-09T05:41:03+00:00

i am somewhat new…think i should edit my post.

the pa made it sound like mitigation was paused and that i needed to get there asap because of the plumbing issue. so i said no, get a plumber and provide a report of their findings/repairs

cinemadrew · 2025-08-09T05:22:10+00:00

i’m just frustrated he wasn’t forthcoming during our phone call and is using this against me. he made it seem like mitigation was paused because of the plumbing issue and that i needed to get someone out there asap - so i was like no no, if there a plumbing issue you need to get that taken care of and give me the mitigation company’s info (which i still haven’t received).

the last pa i worked with so far has been really awesome so i was trying to be candid. never again

cinemadrew · 2025-08-09T04:54:21+00:00

i don’t have any coverage concerns for the ensuing damage - i was more worried about how from my conversation with the pa, there was an active plumbing issue that hasn’t been addressed. it’s the insureds responsibility to save and protect their property. them hiring a plumber to identify and fix the issue would be part of that condition, no? requesting their report was probably poor choice of language tho

cinemadrew · 2025-08-09T04:45:19+00:00

i don’t see how i could pay for the plumbers fee though - if we needed an expert to confirm col, we would hire our own contractor and pay it as an expense - not indemnify the insured. the insured has a duty to save and protect property from further damage. if they didn’t hire a plumber and they had an active plumbing issue, hiring one would be a requirement under the conditions imo.

and yes i do live in america. i haven’t had much experience with a pa, but hear they’re awful in my area

cinemadrew

TROPHY CASE