Adjusters Introduce ‘CarFax for Insurance Claims’ to Evaluate Insurers’ Damage Assessments
In the Southeast, two independent claims adjusters have joined forces to introduce a groundbreaking tool aimed at helping property owners verify insurance carriers’ damage estimates on claims. This innovative solution is being dubbed the “CarFax for property insurance claims,” drawing a parallel to the well-known site that provides vehicle accident reports.
Known as InsuranceClaim123.com, this platform could significantly alter the landscape for insurance carriers, lawyers, and public adjusters alike. By leveraging artificial intelligence alongside building permit records, photographs, and the expertise of seasoned adjusters, the system identifies potential oversights made by insurance company adjusters. These oversights may include missed property damage, incorrect material pricing, and instances where insurers propose covering only repair costs rather than the full replacement value.
“We believe homeowners can utilize this tool to negotiate effectively with their insurance carriers regarding the final payout,” stated Ben Mandell, a former homebuilder and independent adjuster since 2017. He collaborated with fellow adjuster Mark Vinson, a computer science graduate, to develop the InsuranceClaim123 system over the past year.
With this website, homeowners can address that unsettling feeling of potentially not receiving full compensation for legitimate claims. The process is straightforward: homeowners upload their insurance company’s build-back estimates to the site. Within three to five business days, they receive a report highlighting items that should have been covered or confirming the accuracy of the carrier’s report.
The cost for this service is $295 per report, which is significantly more affordable than hiring a public adjuster or lawyer to contest or litigate a claim.
For instance, Mandell shared a redacted report concerning a damage estimate from a major national carrier after a tree fell on a home. The insurer proposed repairing a small section of the roof and roof decking, along with 15 feet of fascia board and downspout, but excluded the gutters.
The InsuranceClaim123 report argues that tree impacts typically affect fascia, gutters, hangers, and downspouts collectively. It also suggests conducting an attic inspection to assess potential damage to rafters and trusses. Discrepancies were noted in the insurer’s estimate regarding the number of new roof shingles versus the amount of plywood decking required. Additionally, the report highlights that new vinyl siding may not match the old, necessitating a larger replacement area.
The report further indicates that the extent of roof decking replacement suggests more significant interior damage, potentially requiring full replacement of ceiling drywall in at least one room. The insurer should also cover additional costs for insulation and paint, according to the findings.
While the insurer’s report indicated a depreciation of 67%, the InsuranceClaim123 analysis contends that typical depreciation is closer to 15%. Overall, the carrier’s estimate could be $20,000 to $45,000 too low, the website asserts.
Some industry advocates express skepticism about how a system could accurately estimate damages without a physical property inspection. However, Mandell and Vinson emphasize that their approach incorporates years of experience, property data, and current material costs, akin to the methods used by carriers’ desk adjusters when revising field adjusters’ reports.
“I became interested in this by trying to reverse-engineer how insurance companies reduce our estimates and manipulate their reports,” Vinson explained. As a licensed public adjuster in Texas, he accessed numerous redacted adjuster reports from a third-party administrator to inform the system’s development.
Both Mandell and Vinson are recognized figures in the property insurance and claims sectors, having previously testified as whistleblowers at a Florida House of Representatives meeting in 2022. They accused several insurance carriers of deceptively altering field reports and reducing damage estimates while retaining the adjusters’ names on the revised documents. The InsuranceClaim123 site, which officially launched this month, has already received an overwhelming number of report requests.
While some insurance industry advocates have raised concerns about the accuracy of Mandell’s roof reports, particularly in light of Florida laws allowing for repair instead of full replacement for certain roof damages, Mandell argues that the need for such a system is more pressing than ever. He points out that many carriers are hiring less experienced adjusters and finding new ways to minimize payouts.
“I mean, 87% depreciation on some claims—that’s absurd,” Mandell remarked.
As the impact of the InsuranceClaim123 product on the insurance and litigation landscape remains to be seen, it may serve as a valuable tool for plaintiffs’ lawyers in determining the viability of claims for litigation. Public adjusters could also benefit by using the system to vet claims before investing time in physical property inspections.
However, some experts warn that homeowners might opt for this review site over public adjusters, especially as more carriers introduce policy endorsements offering premium credits for those who agree not to hire public adjusters. In the past year, at least four insurers have filed for such endorsements in Florida, with one already approved.
“This could be another nail in the coffin for public adjusters,” cautioned Scott Johnson, a Florida insurance educator and consultant.
Nancy Dominguez, managing director of the Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters, noted that while association members have not yet utilized the 123 product, a tool that analyzes uploaded data without inspecting the property cannot replace the judgment of a licensed adjuster. “A.I. may assist with preliminary review, but it is not a substitute for experienced, on-site claim representation,” she stated.
As the InsuranceClaim123.com platform evolves, it remains to be seen how it will address potential fraud, such as claims that may include pre-existing or non-existent damage. “We’ll tackle that issue as it arises,” Mandell said.
Related: ’60 Minutes’ Homeowners Ask Court to Force DFS to Divulge Heritage Probe Info
In the Southeast, two independent claims adjusters have joined forces to introduce a groundbreaking tool aimed at helping property owners verify insurance carriers’ damage estimates on claims. This innovative solution is being dubbed the “CarFax for property insurance claims,” drawing a parallel to the well-known site that provides vehicle accident reports.
Known as InsuranceClaim123.com, this platform could significantly alter the landscape for insurance carriers, lawyers, and public adjusters alike. By leveraging artificial intelligence alongside building permit records, photographs, and the expertise of seasoned adjusters, the system identifies potential oversights made by insurance company adjusters. These oversights may include missed property damage, incorrect material pricing, and instances where insurers propose covering only repair costs rather than the full replacement value.
“We believe homeowners can utilize this tool to negotiate effectively with their insurance carriers regarding the final payout,” stated Ben Mandell, a former homebuilder and independent adjuster since 2017. He collaborated with fellow adjuster Mark Vinson, a computer science graduate, to develop the InsuranceClaim123 system over the past year.
With this website, homeowners can address that unsettling feeling of potentially not receiving full compensation for legitimate claims. The process is straightforward: homeowners upload their insurance company’s build-back estimates to the site. Within three to five business days, they receive a report highlighting items that should have been covered or confirming the accuracy of the carrier’s report.
The cost for this service is $295 per report, which is significantly more affordable than hiring a public adjuster or lawyer to contest or litigate a claim.
For instance, Mandell shared a redacted report concerning a damage estimate from a major national carrier after a tree fell on a home. The insurer proposed repairing a small section of the roof and roof decking, along with 15 feet of fascia board and downspout, but excluded the gutters.
The InsuranceClaim123 report argues that tree impacts typically affect fascia, gutters, hangers, and downspouts collectively. It also suggests conducting an attic inspection to assess potential damage to rafters and trusses. Discrepancies were noted in the insurer’s estimate regarding the number of new roof shingles versus the amount of plywood decking required. Additionally, the report highlights that new vinyl siding may not match the old, necessitating a larger replacement area.
The report further indicates that the extent of roof decking replacement suggests more significant interior damage, potentially requiring full replacement of ceiling drywall in at least one room. The insurer should also cover additional costs for insulation and paint, according to the findings.
While the insurer’s report indicated a depreciation of 67%, the InsuranceClaim123 analysis contends that typical depreciation is closer to 15%. Overall, the carrier’s estimate could be $20,000 to $45,000 too low, the website asserts.
Some industry advocates express skepticism about how a system could accurately estimate damages without a physical property inspection. However, Mandell and Vinson emphasize that their approach incorporates years of experience, property data, and current material costs, akin to the methods used by carriers’ desk adjusters when revising field adjusters’ reports.
“I became interested in this by trying to reverse-engineer how insurance companies reduce our estimates and manipulate their reports,” Vinson explained. As a licensed public adjuster in Texas, he accessed numerous redacted adjuster reports from a third-party administrator to inform the system’s development.
Both Mandell and Vinson are recognized figures in the property insurance and claims sectors, having previously testified as whistleblowers at a Florida House of Representatives meeting in 2022. They accused several insurance carriers of deceptively altering field reports and reducing damage estimates while retaining the adjusters’ names on the revised documents. The InsuranceClaim123 site, which officially launched this month, has already received an overwhelming number of report requests.
While some insurance industry advocates have raised concerns about the accuracy of Mandell’s roof reports, particularly in light of Florida laws allowing for repair instead of full replacement for certain roof damages, Mandell argues that the need for such a system is more pressing than ever. He points out that many carriers are hiring less experienced adjusters and finding new ways to minimize payouts.
“I mean, 87% depreciation on some claims—that’s absurd,” Mandell remarked.
As the impact of the InsuranceClaim123 product on the insurance and litigation landscape remains to be seen, it may serve as a valuable tool for plaintiffs’ lawyers in determining the viability of claims for litigation. Public adjusters could also benefit by using the system to vet claims before investing time in physical property inspections.
However, some experts warn that homeowners might opt for this review site over public adjusters, especially as more carriers introduce policy endorsements offering premium credits for those who agree not to hire public adjusters. In the past year, at least four insurers have filed for such endorsements in Florida, with one already approved.
“This could be another nail in the coffin for public adjusters,” cautioned Scott Johnson, a Florida insurance educator and consultant.
Nancy Dominguez, managing director of the Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters, noted that while association members have not yet utilized the 123 product, a tool that analyzes uploaded data without inspecting the property cannot replace the judgment of a licensed adjuster. “A.I. may assist with preliminary review, but it is not a substitute for experienced, on-site claim representation,” she stated.
As the InsuranceClaim123.com platform evolves, it remains to be seen how it will address potential fraud, such as claims that may include pre-existing or non-existent damage. “We’ll tackle that issue as it arises,” Mandell said.
Related: ’60 Minutes’ Homeowners Ask Court to Force DFS to Divulge Heritage Probe Info
