Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
April 04, 2022
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Appraiser Working on a Contingency Fee not Impartial

Referral Fee For The Opportunity To Act As The Appraiser Just Plain Looks Bad, Smells Bad, And Is Bad

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/good-deed-goes-unpunished-appraiser-working-fee-zalma-esq-cfe and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4150 posts.

Posted on April 4, 2022 by Barry Zalma
CONTINGENCY FEE DESTROYS IMPARTIALITY

Travelers was presented with a claim that it evaluated and paid promptly. Faced with evidence of additional damage it paid more. Regardless the insured assigned its additional claim to its roofer who retained an appraiser who agreed to work on a contingency fee plus provide a 15% fee to the roofer. In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. Mudd’s Furniture Showrooms, Inc., CMS Roofing, Inc., and Jaron Jaggers, Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-186-JHM, United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division (March 28, 2022) the USDC in Kentucky found it necessary to vacate the award for breach of the requirement for an impartial appraisal.
FACTS

In a protracted insurance dispute resulting from roof damage to a Mudd’s Furniture Showrooms (“Mudd’s”) building caused by a severe wind and rainstorm (the “Loss”) the parties were unable to resolve the claim, and Mudd’s invoked the appraisal process under the policy. The resulting appraisal award, which Travelers deems invalid, prompted Travelers to file a declaratory judgment action.
The Initial Loss and Investigation

Travelers adjusted the loss claim making a payment reflecting only the replacement of the metal roof covering, some exterior roof patching, and limited interior water damage in the rooms located beneath the single section of roof.

Mudd’s entered into an agreement with CMS Roofing, Inc., a roofing contractor, which authorized CMS to assist Mudd’s in the insurance claim. Responding to CMS’s discovery, Travelers deployed engineers and inspectors to the property to check it out themselves. A subsequent engineering report confirmed CMS’s findings and acknowledged further areas of damage beyond Travelers’ initial assessment. Travelers re-evaluated the claim in December 2017 and permitted more money to be paid to cover the exterior roofing damage. Travelers’ re-adjustment increased the claim allowance to $154,887.84, with a $114,910.64 ACV. Travelers accordingly paid Mudd’s $64,154.85 (the difference between the initial ACV paid in June and the newly calculated ACV in December). [

Mudd’s authorized CMS to proceed with the roof replacement. CMS completed the roof replacement for the areas covered by the re-adjustment in June 2018.
THE APPRAISAL

Despite Travelers’ adjustments, Mudd’s and CMS’s Jaron Jaggers [“Jaggers”] retained doubts about whether the claim assessments were accurate and sufficient to cover the full extent of the damage. Mudd’s assigned its rights in the insurance claim to Jaggers. Thereafter, Jaggers had discussions with Mr. Denis Rowe, Vice President and Partner in The Howarth Group, which is a firm that provides insurance claim consulting services to policyholders. Jaggers, Rowe, and Chuck Howarth, President and Founder of the Howarth Group, had a dinner meeting where they discussed the claim. Mudd’s and Jaggers subsequently signed an Appraisal Employment Agreement naming the Howarth Group as their appraiser. The fee arrangement in the original Appraisal Employment Agreement between Howarth and Mudd’s was for an hourly rate of $375, with the total fee to be capped at no more than 30% of any additional amounts recovered by Mudd’s through the appraisal process (a “contingency fee cap” arrangement). Furthermore, the agreement stated: “should the process produce no additional settlement then no fee will be due.” Howarth agreed to pay Jaggers a 15% referral fee for the appraisal work, to be paid from Howarth’s fee as the appraiser.

Umpire Ward considered submissions from both parties reflecting its perceived amounts of loss, respectively. The Award comprised two separate estimates created by Ward, one for exterior roofing damage and one for interior damage. The Award determined the cause of the Loss to be wind and water damage and set the Loss amount as $784,754.64 ACV and $844,290.37 RCV. The exterior damage estimate consisted of $283,827.42 RCV, and the interior estimate amounted to $500,927.22 for ACV and $560,462.95 for RCV.
DISPUTE OF THE AWARD AND TRAVELERS’ COMPLAINT

Travelers alleged that the Award should be vacated because Howarth was not impartial as Mudd’s appraiser, as required by the Policy, owing to his contingency fee-based arrangement with Jaggers. Travelers claims that Mr. Howarth colluded with Jaggers to submit inflated roofing estimates for the appraisal, rather than disclose the amounts actually incurred by Jaggers and CMS to replace the roofs, because he had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the appraisal.
DISCUSSION

Travelers argued strenuously that Howarth was paid on a contingency fee basis and thus cannot be an impartial appraiser. A contingency fee arrangement renders an appraiser not impartial because it would generate a “personal stake in the appraisal results.” [Veranda Gardens, LLC v. Secura Ins., No. 3:18-cv-611-DJH-RSE, 2019 WL 2438788, at 4 (W.D. Ky. June 11, 2019).] When appraisers have a contingency fee arrangement in place but later retract it, like what Howarth did in this case, courts have still found the agreement to improperly affect the appraiser’s ability to be impartial. [See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Summit Park Townhome Association, No. 14-cv-03417-LTB, 2016 WL 1321507, at 5 (D. Colo. Apr. 7, 2016).]

A provision that states “should the process produce no additional settlement then no fee will be due” clearly is wrongful. Here, Howarth’s initial fee arrangement clearly incentivizes him to expand the scope of loss in this case. Whether the fee arrangement was modified to remove such provisions is disputed, but the fact that it was there at the beginning is indicative of Howarth’s mindset with respect to the appraisal. Howarth initially proposed the contingent cap because he wanted Mudd’s to “benefit” from his appraisal.
An appraiser must not show bias or favoritism to any party or do the partisan bidding of one side.

Howarth is not one who occasionally acts as an appraiser in an insurance dispute. Acting as an appraiser is now his principal business. His business is to help policyholders when his focus as an appraiser should be to fairly and impartially value a loss.

In this case, Howarth initially got involved when he learned from Denis Rowe of an opportunity where his firm could add “scope” to an insurance claim. Jaggers, Rowe, and Howarth had meetings where they discussed the claim and the idea that Howarth’s fee would come from adding “scope” to the interior damage to the building. Even before the appraisal process was invoked, Rowe advised Howarth that “we could add another 100 to 150 [thousand dollars] on the claim.”

Howarth initially tied his fee to whatever amount was added over what Travelers had already offered in settlement. Moreover, he tried to hide this from Travelers, redacting the portions of both his compensation package and Jaggers’ referral fee in correspondence with Travelers. The relationship that Howarth had with Jaggers, the roofer-who became the insured via an assignment- was more than troubling. Cultivating a relationship with a roofing contractor like Jaggers is apparently important to Howarth’s business, so much so that Howarth was willing to pay Jaggers 15% of any compensation he received from serving as the appraiser on this claim.

The Court concluded that the Howarth Group crossed the line. The word “impartial” the requirement the policy placed on people who could serve as an appraiser,
means unbiased and disinterested-not favoring either side over the other.” Rather than being disinterested and agreeing to undertake the task of rendering a fair and impartial appraisal, no matter the outcome, Howarth concluded from the outset that it could add “scope” to the project, going so far as to promise the insured that if it could not add value, it would charge nothing for the effort.

While adding value is the understandable desire of the insureds, an impartial appraiser should not begin his work with this as the goal. Howarth might ask here, “why should we get involved if we don’t think we can help the policyholder add value to the claim?” The answer is: get involved as an adjuster, not as an appraiser, if it is your desire to help the policyholder.

The Howarth Group uses the appraisal process as a tool to help policyholders, which in the Court’s opinion is not how the process should work. Lastly, paying a roofer, who has been assigned the insurance claim, a referral fee for the opportunity to act as the appraiser just plain looks bad, smells bad, and is bad.

Based on the foregoing, the Court concluded that no reasonable jury could determine that Howarth acted as an impartial appraiser . Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment to Travelers on Count I and vacated the Award.
ZALMA OPINION

Appraisal is a tool to fairly, and in good faith, resolve disputes between an insurer and its insured to determine the amount of loss. To reach a fair result the appraisers and the umpire must be impartial and disinterested. When a person is retained as an appraiser he or she promises to increase the scope of the loss and serve on a contingency fee basis it is impossible for that person to be an impartial and disinterested trier of the facts of the loss. The court should have forwarded the evidence presented in the motion for summary judgment to the US Attorney since the award was obtained wrongfully and was an attempt to defraud Travelers who was sued only because it did what the policy required and, when shown more damages, paid for those promptly.

(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].

Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe.

Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.

Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.

Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
20 hours ago
Allegations That Establish Breach of a Condition Defeats Suit

Notice of Claim Later than 60 Days After Expiration is Too Late

Post 5089

Injury at Massage Causes Suit Against Therapist

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gziRzFV8, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gF4aYrQ2 and at https://lnkd.in/gqShuGs9, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.

Hiscox Insurance Company (“Hiscox”) moved the USDC to Dismiss a suit for failure to state a claim because the insured reported its claim more than 60 days after expiration of the policy.

In Mluxe Williamsburg, LLC v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc., et al., No. 4:25-cv-00002, United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division (May 22, 2025) the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, the operator of a massage spa franchise, entered into a commercial insurance agreement with Hiscox that provided liability insurance coverage from July 25, 2019, to July 25, 2020. On or about June 03, 2019, a customer alleged that one of Plaintiff’s employees engaged in tortious ...

00:08:31
June 02, 2025
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – June 1, 2025

ZIFL – Volume 29, Issue 11
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
Posted on June 2, 2025 by Barry Zalma

Post 5087

See the full video at and at

Read the full article and the full issue of ZIFL June 1, 2025 at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-06-01-2025.pdf

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – June 1, 2025

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gw-Hgww9 and at https://lnkd.in/gF8QAq4d, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.

ZIFL – Volume 29, Issue 11

The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional

Read the full article and the full issue of ZIFL June 1, 2025 at https://lnkd.in/gTWZUnnF

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at ...

00:08:42
placeholder
May 30, 2025
Plain Language of Policy Enforced

No Coverage if Home Vacant for More Than 60 Days

Failure to Respond To Counterclaim is an Admission of All Allegations

Post 5085

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gbWPjHub and at https://lnkd.in/gZ9ztA-P, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.

In Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Rebecca Massey, Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-00124, United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division (May 22, 2025) Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company's (“Nationwide”) motion for Default Judgment against Plaintiff Rebecca Massey (“Plaintiff”) for failure to respond to a counterclaim and because the claim was excluded by the policy.

BACKGROUND

On February 26, 2022, Plaintiff's home was destroyed by a fire. At the time of this accident, Plaintiff had a home insurance policy with Nationwide. Plaintiff reported the fire loss to Nationwide, which refused to pay for the damages under the policy because the home had been vacant for more than 60 days.

Plaintiff filed suit ...

00:06:50
May 15, 2025
Zalma's Insurance Fraud Letter - May 15, 2025

ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:

Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness

To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness

In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...

May 15, 2025
CGL Is Not a Medical Malpractice Policy

Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective

Post 5073

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.

This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.

In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:

Insurance Coverage Dispute:

Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...

April 30, 2025
The Devil’s in The Details

A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062

Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma

"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ­­­Perpetrators than any Other Crime."

Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud

People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.

The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals