Prior to the beginning of Premier's Blog series on how California Claimants can protect themselves during a property insurance claim from both actual acts or attempted acts of bad faith from insurers, as well as from the more unexpected threats involving other "claimants" to the same claim, there is a related item which needs to be brought to this state's regulators' and to the legislature's attention: Discrimination based on occupation in insurance claims.
While it may seem like an unnecessary subject, in as much as most California consumers and others likely expect there already to be in place laws or regulations protecting the rights of others regardless of their occupation, consider the following minimum standard for insurers licensed to handle claims in this state from the California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations ("CA Regulations"):
Section 2695.7. Standards for Prompt, Fair and Equitable Settlements
(a) No insurer shall discriminate in its claims settlement practices based upon the claimant's age, race, gender, income, religion, language, sexual orientation, ancestry, national origin, or physical disability, or upon the territory of the property or person insured.
In view of the continuous mistreatment of public insurance adjusters in this state and in other states, evidenced in part by my recent article, "Are Public Adjusters Still Being Demonized?", while the items listed above are very important and should never be used as the basis for any discrimination, missing from the above CA Regulation is the expressed prohibition against discrimination based on "occupation."
The above quoted CA Regulation is intended to "promote the good faith, prompt, efficient and equitable settlement of claims on cost effective basis" (CA Regulations, section 2695.1[a][1][2]). Yet, how can such a process take place if the insured's public insurance adjuster is discriminated against by insurers or, worse, by other claimants such as so-called "bad faith" attorneys who often rely entirely on the public adjuster's work product, and who usually come in near the end of a claim, that is, once the facts of the loss and the claim adjustment have in large part already been documented by the public adjuster?
It is possible, but my over 16 years of experience in the adjusting industry in California shows that public adjusters have been and we still are being discriminated against by some insurers' claim adjusters, claim supervisors, and claim managers, as well as by (surprisingly) the very bad faith attorneys recommended and/or brought to the insured for assistance with insurers, but who then discriminate against other claimants by their words and by their actions against public insurance adjusters.
Though in 2004 the 1997 version of CA Regulations section 2695.7(a) was modified to include a prohibition against discrimination based on a person's "age," no other description has since been added, though clearly "occupation" should also be added to the list of prohibited types of discrimination, particularly in view of the apparent and ongoing discrimination against public insurance adjusters because of their occupation. Yet, the occupation itself gives no good cause for discrimination. Indeed, consider the following selections from this state's "Public Adjuster's Act," from the California Insurance Code, sections 15007 and 15011(d), respectively (with added underlining):
15007. A public insurance adjuster within the meaning of this chapter is a person who, for compensation, acts on behalf of or aids in any manner, an insured in negotiating for or effecting the settlement of a claim or claims for loss or damage under any policy of insurance covering real or personal property or any person who advertises, solicits business, or holds himself or herself out to the public as an adjuster of those claims and any person who, for compensation, investigates, settles, adjusts, advises, or assists an insured with reference to claims for those losses on behalf of any public insurance adjuster.
150011(d) [A public insurance adjuster shall] have had sufficient experience, or special education or training, or both, in the handling of loss claims under insurance contracts as determined by regulations adopted by the commissioner, and is competent to transact business and discharge the responsibilities of a public insurance adjuster in such a manner as to safeguard the interests of the public.
Far from being undesirable, the public adjusting profession should be promoted in this state rather than looked down upon either by insurers or by attorneys, who often speak of public adjusting as "the Dark Side" of the claim adjusting industry.
Clearly, then, "occupation" should be added to the list of items not to be discriminated against in this state in an insurance claim. Otherwise, not only will public adjusting continue to suffer by having to endure and to deal with what others in our industry have without partiality (namely, Bruce Hillman) called the 'demonizing' of public adjusters. As it turns out, in this case the "demons" just might be figurative "angels," or surely a Godsend, that is, when it comes to adjusting claims with some insurers and with some of their claim agents in this state.
