Humbly Confident
2 Timothy 1:12 TPT The confidence of my calling enables me to overcome every difficulty without shame, for I have an intimate revelation of this God. And my faith in him convinces me that he is more than able to keep all that I’ve placed in his hands safe and secure until the fullness of his appearing.
Humility is the ability to stand confident in your preparation and position without having to resort to belligerence, threats, or pressure to defend and support your point of view. It is also extremely difficult to master. In business, it often appears that arrogance and rudeness rule the day; however, I have come to realize that those types of victories are short-lived and ultimately cost more than they provide. Standing on the force of my argument alone is tenable at best and extremely destructive in most cases.
Arrogance, on the other hand, is the belief that force of personality and the use of a threatening outcome can force others to fall into agreement with your demands. While humility desires truth and honesty, arrogance demands compliance and a predetermined outcome regardless of the facts or circumstances involved. Humility serves all interests; arrogance is purely self-serving.
In the insurance appraisal process, if both parties to the appraisal are unwilling or unable to seek honest and impartial resolution, the intent of the process is defeated before it has even started. The facts of the loss, the circumstances that created the loss, and the appropriate and economical method of mitigating the loss are all elements that demand honest and knowledgeable consideration. Humility seeks appropriate resolution; arrogance seeks unreasonable benefit.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” – Shakespeare, Hamlet
Lack of preparation manifests in numerous ways. The most common is the circular argument, stated with passion. Each repeats their argument using essentially the same language with minor variations. No new information is offered, and no compromise is presented, simply because the effort to be better prepared was never put forth. Usually, in these encounters, ‘facts’ are repeated arguments or taglines learned as tools and rarely germane to the circumstance in question.
As an example, I was recently presented with the ‘fact’ that all drywall that has gotten wet MUST be torn out and disposed of. When questioned as to why this is required when there was no evidence of damage or change in the material’s ability to serve its purpose, I was informed that drywall that has been wet and then dries is harder and therefore no longer acceptable. The fact stated is true; however, improvement in anything does not constitute damage.
The idea that a structural member becoming stronger makes it no longer acceptable makes absolutely no sense to me. To begin with, the word "damage" is not a difficult concept to understand. Damage has been defined as a substantive change such that it impairs its value, usefulness, or normal function. Without such a change, damage has not occurred. Secondly, even when items are damaged, there is no hard-and-fast rule that requires them to be replaced. I don’t replace my automobile simply because a grocery cart has hit a door panel.
It has been my experience that there is a serious lack of knowledge concerning building construction and components. The vast majority of those I oppose in appraisal are totally ignorant concerning building material repairs and restoration. In almost every case, they are coached by the contractor or public adjuster who has invoked the appraisal. Obviously, these individuals have an agenda that is anything but impartial or disinterested. Based on the coaching they receive, they respond with assertions based on the same repetitive arguments.
Invariably, it is at this point that the conversation gets more tense as I am accused of being an agent of the carrier and unwilling to see the criminal way the insured is being treated. However, I have learned to simply focus on the facts and not get drawn into these meaningless accusations. It is rarely about the facts of the loss; it is consistently about the money.
As proof of this fact, it is most common for those that we oppose to talk dollars and rarely seem willing to address the scope. I frequently am told, “We’re $5,000 apart” or “Add $7,500 and we can close this.” Invariably, I find myself asking what I should use to justify this amount. When one side is looking for a dollar amount and the other is attempting to address the scope of loss, there is literally no basis for agreement. For appraisal to regain its value and relevance, I believe we must become committed to the following three principles:
1. The scope of the appraisal must be identified before the appraisers and umpires are identified.
It has been my experience that participating in an appraisal is like joining a game without any agreed-upon rules, no clear understanding of the limits of authority granted, and a complete absence of a clearly defined objective.
Do I appraise damage directly related to a named cause of loss? Is old damage considered? Should we include construction defects or wear and tear? Just exactly what is in play?
How do I keep the appraisal moving forward when the other side is making demands that don’t make sense in the scope of loss? Who determines where the appraisal begins and ends? How do I know that I served the purpose of the appraisal and fulfilled my obligations and responsibilities?
Without clearly defined objectives and responsibilities, each appraisal is a brave new world where nobody knows what they are supposed to be doing. Being confident that you are doing what you have been asked to do and doing it with humility is the only way this will work effectively.
2. Each appraiser should be independent of his/her client’s wishes or influence.
The very reason for the appraisal is a dispute between the parties to the loss. Allowing their desires to influence the eventual settlement is not appraisal; it is negotiation. When either appraiser is influenced by the party that secured his/her services, they are working as an agent for their client, not an independent or impartial appraiser.
Rarely have I encountered a time when the insurer attempts to influence an award. However, I regularly find that the appraiser for the claimant is expected to seek their client’s approval prior to agreeing to an award. This is not appropriate and defeats the purpose of appraisal.
Because policing this issue is almost impossible, I find that nobody is trying to hide the fact anymore. Maybe I’m naïve, but I would assume that when I document this occurring, the carrier would void the appraisal. But that doesn’t happen either.
Most of the awards coming from these types of appraisals either highly favor the claimant or end up with an umpire being invoked. Recently I a team lead from a carrier encouraged me to avoid umpires as much as possible. When I asked about this position, he replied that as a rule they resulted in larger awards. To be fair I have participated in many appraisals where the carrier really got it wrong and I’m more than willing to point this out when it occurs. Yet, this is not in every case, it is my opinion that the facts of the loss and its true cost should be the paramount concern of the panel. It should not just be a battle of winning and losing. In this case being humbly confident is being committed to fairness and truth, not negotiating the largest, or smallest, possible award.
3. Each appraiser should be proven knowledgeable and qualified to appraise the damage in question.
The forcefulness of your argument will never overcome the presentation of fact. Debating, accusation, and threats are not appropriate elements of appraisal.
Recently I found myself handling two appraisals with largely common elements. Each one had the same named appraisers, they were both water damage losses, the contractor was the same and the carrier was also the same insurer. In addition, the opposing appraiser and I agreed on the same umpire and the contractor had used the same hygienist to defend his position and estimate.
The first appraisal was finalized with the umpire added to the panel. The appraiser I was opposing refused to create a position stating that he was standing on the contractor’s estimate. After considerable investigation the umpire determined that the arguments presented by the hygienist were significantly flawed and returned an award which I signed.
The immediate reaction from the contractor was to inform his appraiser that he was suing the umpire for his position and demanded that the appraiser void any use of him in any further appraisal which involved his company. The appraiser notified both me and the umpire that a suit was following and that the umpire must recuse himself from the yet pending appraisal.
The umpire agreed to drop out and the carrier graciously allowed the appraisal to continue. Now the second appraisal is in process and another umpire has been invoked. The opposing appraiser failed again to present a position six months after the inspection had occurred.
Eventually he contacted me and stated that he was inviting another individual that was more experienced in construction estimating and requested that I negotiate the final determination with him. I agreed that this would be possible if he resigned his position as appraiser and asked the contractor to designate this new individual as appraiser. He was shocked by my position. I explained that as an appraiser he should have the ability to present a position, not have to rely on someone else to give it to him.
After the continued failure of this appraiser to present a position, it became necessary to invoke the umpire to move the appraisal forward. The first act of the new umpire was to request a position from him. So far, no position has been forthcoming.
The opportunity to become angry or even discouraged is very real. Yet, I continue to stand confident in my position because of my personal knowledge and experience with this type of damage and repair.
The future effectiveness of appraisal is going to be determined by the availability of qualified and impartial appraisers. Let’s commit to preparation and fairness in order to ensure its success.
