Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastskiguy
Yeah I'm sure that's right, the contract needs to give assignment of benefits in order for them to have a shot of getting paid if they can get money out of the insurance company.
But is there a downside for the homeowner? I can see a downside for the insurance company, the roof inspector/sales guy, and the attorney. But I'm missing where the homeowner gets screwed. Can anybody spell this out for me?
Joe
|
The contract needs to give AOB in order for the roofer and the lawyer to inflate the costs and threaten to sue the insurance company. Without AOB, the homeowner would collect from the insurance and pay the roofer. The homeowner is not as practiced at bringing lawsuits and would not be interested in padding costs so it would not work out as well for the roofer.
Does the homeowner get screwed? I don't know. I could imagine his insurance company might drop him. I could imagine the insurance company might refuse to pay and prevail in court and the roofer might try to collect from the homeowner. There is a recent change in Florida law that restricts or prohibits the AOB that might come into play somehow.
More than anything else, the homeowner would need to live with his conscience knowing that he played a part in raising insurance prices for everyone.
Of course, if a second opinion confirms the damage and need for a new roof or if there is no AOB then there is no scam.