Nov 142017

We help folks after a loss, any loss. It is especially disheartening to have to help someone on a loss that could have been prevented.

Education is the main way we #ProtectTheInsured. Prevention is a major part of that.

Go forth, have a Happy Thanksgiving, a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.

Cal Spoon

No Recovery, Absolutely No Fee!

Oct 292017
Make sure to click the sound.
From our family to yours, Happy Halloween!



On a serious note, don’t let your Insurers spook you out of hiring professional help with your Insurance Claim. Never forget, they are sending THEIR guy to tell You how little THEY owe YOU!

As always, No Recovery, Absolutely No Fee!

Only way to #ProtectTheInsured

Texas Public Insurance Adjuster License #1603054


Sep 042017

The truth behind Texas’ new Insurance Law.


The new law, otherwise known as “HB 1774”, or the “Blue Tarps Bill”, will only affect you if… you disagree with what your insurer says after a catastrophic loss, such as Hurricane Harvey.

If your insurer comes rushing out, pays you everything you are owed, on their own, you have absolutely nothing to be concerned about… Lest we forget, those same insurers are sending “their” guy to tell you how much they “owe” you.

In reality, we have proven time after time, insurers routinely underpay on all claims. So, this law would affect all claims in the event that the carrier actually “gets caught”.  I have heard many different versions, from many different credible sources (one of which also included a divorce lawyer overland park). I have yet to hear the real meat hit the public’s eye.

The ONLY thing this law does, is reduce the penalties an insurer will pay in the event they are caught.

It is a broad statement that encompasses many facets, all leading to one outcome.  Here is an example scenario:

Insured purchases both Flood and Wind insurance to South Carolina business insurance. Hurricane Harvey devastates the South Texas Coast, more specifically, Rockport, Texas. Insured has covered losses from both Wind and Flood. Structure is gone, completely. Texas has a 5-day “Liquidated Demand” clause in the policy, which means that when a structure is deemed to be totaled by any reasonable means, the insurer has 5 days to pay structure limits. Notice that this coverage is separated, and very specific. It is the only portion of the policy it applies to… the structure, only one portion of the coverages available to the insured. One of many. This clause, like many others, serves dual purposes.

(It allows the insurer to pay the mandated amount, keeping their obligation to timelines, while effectively purchasing good will from the insured… While this may not seem like a big deal, it is. A very big deal. It paves the way for what is to come next. A laundry list of forms, procedures and details designed for one thing. Minimize pay outs. When you, the insured, becomes wear of the entire thing, there will be someone on the insurer’s payroll, taking full advantage of the situation, by asking questions and giving answers that suggest maybe you are “embellishing” the value of this, and that… and don’t forget, we paid the full structure limit right away!)

Back to our insured… we have established coverage for both, Flood and Wind. Now, the question remains, which one did what? Did water come from both places? The roof and the ground? Does Wind only owe for a roof? Does Flood owe for EVERYTHING below the Flood line?

Now suppose any one single item is in contention. Let us choose contents. Great Grandma’s antique hutch that has been through 8 generations. Flood water has damaged the lower half, while a Wind created opening allowed water in from rains, which damaged the top of the hutch. Flood agrees to cover, but your contents is maxed out and wind is refusing coverage, attempting to state Flood was responsible. (Hurricane Katrina and Sandy proved that neither private carriers not the government can be trusted when they were spending their money to pay legitimate claims.)

You now have a dispute, and the new law affects you. Remember, before you had a dispute, this law did not affect you. Now that you do have a legitimate dispute, this Law, HB 1774, directly affects you!


In short form, Layman’s terms:

  • Unless you filed your claim prior to September 1, 2017, your insurer will only owe you 10% as opposed to the original 18%, when caught not paying “promptly”, according to law.
  • If your agent did not do their job, and the adjuster purposefully takes provable illegal routes to deny your claim, or any portion of it, they will no longer be held accountable, if their employer decides to take the responsibility. (This means that when adjusters, engineers… like the ones who doctored the reports in Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy, can be exempted from any charges based on the entity whose benefit their deception rewarded.) In other words, the carrier will get a small “fine” and it will be business as usual before the payment is issued.
  • Set requirements for filing a law suit that did not exist prior to HB 1774. Again, notice this is after they have been caught, and you the insured are attempting to only get what was owed.
  • Set very restrictive guidelines for attorney’s who handle these claims, to obtain fees. There is a number they must present at the beginning, prior to discovery, that reflects what an end result “may” come up to. Approximately within 20%. So, with experience and hypotheticals, without discovery, they must be within that 20% spread in order to obtain.
  • In the event of a dispute, it has effectively limited an insured’s right to recover. That is what HB1774 has done.

If your rights were limited, who received the benefit?

If your recovery is limited, who received the benefit?

How can your agent, the adjusters, engineers and many others who deny your legitimate claims be exempted, yet you, the insured can be retaliated against, and held to those standards they have been exempted of?

No, contrary to what the folks who keep saying this does not affect you are saying… Unless.

Unless you have valid dispute. Then it gives the carrier the benefit on every item introduced as part of this law.

There is NO benefit to us, the insured. Not one single benefit. As the days, weeks and months come and go, and recovery efforts are stalled, there will be one reason. HB 1774 allowed it. HB 1774 made it possible for insurers to knowingly hold your money longer, while paying less penalties.

When they get caught.

Cal Spoon

Aug 282017

Recently, our legislator’s found it within their own best interest to reduce the penalties insurers pay when they are caught dirty dealing on your insurance claim. Yes, you read that correctly. Not on a good day, but a day when they are caught, red handed.


As a licensed Public Insurance Adjuster, I deal with this on an hourly basis. Every claim, every time. Insurers do what they have the unique ability to do… say no. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong. No. Pretty simple way to earn money, especially when your lobbyist have bought the entire legislative body, either directly or indirectly. (Most of our legislators are investors who own stocks in things like, well… #insurance. So, when the stock does well, so do they. Claims are bad for stocks, especially when they have to pay full amounts, or get penalized for not paying when they were supposed to, or what they were supposed to, normally both.)


The result is legislation that was passed against the many, many business leaders and homeowners who protested it, and is now becoming a very real problem for anyone who files any type of claim in Texas.

In a nutshell, they have reduced penalties by nearly half, reduced the amount that can be recovered, and reduced/limited attorney fees. Again, this is not on a good day, but a day when they are actually caught. It is like telling your 4-year-old that stealing a cookie was bad, and as a punishment, she was getting 2 more cookies…


Here is the bill: Located at Texas Legislature Online

Or read it here:

85R20435 LED-F
By: Bonnen of Galveston, Lucio III, Parker, H.B. No. 1774
    Frullo, Phillips, et al.
Substitute the following for H.B. No. 1774:
By:  Phillips C.S.H.B. No. 1774
relating to actions on and liability associated with certain
insurance claims.
       SECTION 1.  Section 541.156(a), Insurance Code, is amended
to read as follows:
       (a)  A person who receives notice provided under Section
541.154 or 542A.003 may make a settlement offer during a period
beginning on the date notice under Section 541.154 or 542A.003 is
received and ending on the 60th day after that date.
       SECTION 2.  Section 542.060, Insurance Code, is amended by
amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsection (c) to read as
       (a)  Except as provided by Subsection (c), if [If] an insurer
that is liable for a claim under an insurance policy is not in
compliance with this subchapter, the insurer is liable to pay the
holder of the policy or the beneficiary making the claim under the
policy, in addition to the amount of the claim, interest on the
amount of the claim at the rate of 18 percent a year as damages,
together with reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. Nothing in
this subsection prevents the award of prejudgment interest on the
amount of the claim, as provided by law.
       (c)  In an action to which Chapter 542A applies, if an
insurer that is liable for a claim under an insurance policy is not
in compliance with this subchapter, the insurer is liable to pay the
holder of the policy, in addition to the amount of the claim, simple
interest on the amount of the claim as damages each year at the rate
determined on the date of judgment by adding five percent to the
interest rate determined under Section 304.003, Finance Code,
together with reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.  Nothing in
this subsection prevents the award of prejudgment interest on the
amount of the claim, as provided by law. Interest awarded under
this subsection as damages accrues beginning on the date the claim
was required to be paid.
       SECTION 3.  Subtitle C, Title 5, Insurance Code, is amended
by adding Chapter 542A to read as follows:
       Sec. 542A.001.  DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
             (1)  “Agent” means an employee, agent, representative,
or adjuster who performs any act on behalf of an insurer.
             (2)  “Claim” means a first-party claim that:
                   (A)  is made by an insured under an insurance
policy providing coverage for real property or improvements to real
                   (B)  must be paid by the insurer directly to the
insured; and
                   (C)  arises from damage to or loss of covered
property caused, wholly or partly, by forces of nature, including
an earthquake or earth tremor, a wildfire, a flood, a tornado,
lightning, a hurricane, hail, wind, a snowstorm, or a rainstorm.
             (3)  “Claimant” means a person making a claim.
             (4)  “Insurer” means a corporation, association,
partnership, or individual, other than the Texas Windstorm
Insurance Association, engaged as a principal in the business of
insurance and authorized or eligible to write property insurance in
this state, including:
                   (A)  an insurance company;
                   (B)  a reciprocal or interinsurance exchange;
                   (C)  a mutual insurance company;
                   (D)  a capital stock insurance company;
                   (E)  a county mutual insurance company;
                   (F)  a farm mutual insurance company;
                   (G)  a Lloyd’s plan;
                   (H)  an eligible surplus lines insurer; or
                   (I)  the FAIR Plan Association.
             (5)  “Person” means a corporation, association,
partnership, or other legal entity or individual.
       Sec. 542A.002.  APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. (a) Except as
provided by Subsection (b), this chapter applies to an action on a
claim against an insurer or agent, including:
             (1)  an action alleging a breach of contract;
             (2)  an action alleging negligence, misrepresentation,
fraud, or breach of a common law duty; or
             (3)  an action brought under:
                   (A)  Subchapter D, Chapter 541;
                   (B)  Subchapter B, Chapter 542; or
                   (C)  Subchapter E, Chapter 17, Business & Commerce
       (b)  This chapter does not apply to an action against the
Texas Windstorm Insurance Association or to an action relating to
or arising from a policy ceded to an insurer by the Texas Windstorm
Insurance Association under Subchapter O, Chapter 2210. An action
against the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association or that relates
to or arises from a policy ceded to an insurer by the Texas
Windstorm Insurance Association under Subchapter O, Chapter 2210,
is governed by Chapter 2210.
       Sec. 542A.003.  NOTICE REQUIRED. (a) In addition to any
other notice required by law or the applicable insurance policy,
not later than the 61st day before the date a claimant files an
action to which this chapter applies in which the claimant seeks
damages from any person, the claimant must give written notice to
the person in accordance with this section as a prerequisite to
filing the action.
       (b)  The notice required under this section must provide:
             (1)  a statement of the acts or omissions giving rise to
the claim;
             (2)  the specific amount alleged to be owed by the
insurer on the claim for damage to or loss of covered property; and
             (3)  the amount of reasonable and necessary attorney’s
fees incurred by the claimant, calculated by multiplying the number
of hours actually worked by the claimant’s attorney, as of the date
the notice is given and as reflected in contemporaneously kept time
records, by an hourly rate that is customary for similar legal
       (c)  If an attorney or other representative gives the notice
required under this section on behalf of a claimant, the attorney or
representative shall:
             (1)  provide a copy of the notice to the claimant; and
             (2)  include in the notice a statement that a copy of
the notice was provided to the claimant.
       (d)  A presuit notice under Subsection (a) is not required if
giving notice is impracticable because:
             (1)  the claimant has a reasonable basis for believing
there is insufficient time to give the presuit notice before the
limitations period will expire; or
             (2)  the action is asserted as a counterclaim.
       (e)  To ensure that a claimant is not prejudiced by having
given the presuit notice required by this chapter, a court shall
dismiss without prejudice an action relating to the claim for which
notice is given by the claimant and commenced:
             (1)  before the 61st day after the date the claimant
provides presuit notice under Subsection (a);
             (2)  by a person to whom presuit notice is given under
Subsection (a); and
             (3)  against the claimant giving the notice.
       (f)  A claimant who gives notice in accordance with this
chapter is not relieved of the obligation to give notice under any
other applicable law. Notice given under this chapter may be
combined with notice given under any other law.
       (g)  Notice given under this chapter is admissible in
evidence in a civil action or alternative dispute resolution
proceeding relating to the claim for which the notice is given.
       (h)  The giving of a notice under this chapter does not
provide a basis for limiting the evidence of attorney’s fees,
damage, or loss a claimant may offer at trial.
       Sec. 542A.004.  INSPECTION. Once notice is given under
Section 542A.003(a), a person to whom notice is given may send a
written request to the claimant to inspect, photograph, or
evaluate, in a reasonable manner and at a reasonable time, the
property that is the subject of the claim.
       Sec. 542A.005.  ABATEMENT. (a) In addition to taking any
other act allowed by contract or by any other law, a person against
whom an action to which this chapter applies is pending may file a
plea in abatement not later than the 30th day after the date the
person files an original answer in the court in which the action is
pending if the person:
             (1)  did not receive a presuit notice complying with
Section 542A.003; or
             (2)  requested under Section 542A.004 but was not
provided a reasonable opportunity to inspect, photograph, or
evaluate the property that is the subject of the claim.
       (b)  The court shall abate the action if the court finds that
the person filing the plea in abatement:
             (1)  did not, for any reason, receive a presuit notice
complying with Section 542A.003; or
             (2)  requested under Section 542A.004 but was not
provided a reasonable opportunity to inspect, photograph, or
evaluate the property that is the subject of the claim.
       (c)  An action is automatically abated without a court order
beginning on the 11th day after the date a plea in abatement is
filed if the plea:
             (1)  is verified and alleges that the person against
whom the action is pending:
                   (A)  did not receive a presuit notice complying
with Section 542A.003; or
                   (B)  requested under Section 542A.004 but was not
provided a reasonable opportunity to inspect, photograph, or
evaluate the property that is the subject of the claim; and
             (2)  is not controverted by an affidavit filed by the
claimant before the 11th day after the date the plea in abatement is
       (d)  An affidavit described by Subsection (c)(2)
controverting whether the person against whom the action is pending
received a presuit notice complying with Section 542A.003 must:
             (1)  include as an attachment a copy of the document the
claimant sent to give notice of the claimant’s action; and
             (2)  state the date on which the notice was given.
       (e)  An abatement under this section continues until the
later of:
             (1)  the 60th day after the date a notice complying with
Section 542A.003 is given; or
             (2)  the 15th day after the date of the requested
inspection, photographing, or evaluating of the property is
       (f)  If an action is abated under this section, a court may
not compel participation in an alternative dispute resolution
proceeding until after the abatement period provided by Subsection
(e) has expired.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (h), in
an action to which this chapter applies, an insurer that is a party
to the action may elect to accept whatever liability an agent might
have to the claimant for the agent’s acts or omissions related to
the claim by providing written notice to the claimant.
       (b)  If an insurer makes an election under Subsection (a)
before a claimant files an action to which this chapter applies, no
cause of action exists against the agent related to the claimant’s
claim, and, if the claimant files an action against the agent, the
court shall dismiss that action with prejudice.
       (c)  If a claimant files an action to which this chapter
applies against an agent and the insurer thereafter makes an
election under Subsection (a) with respect to the agent, the court
shall dismiss the action against the agent with prejudice.
       (d)  If an insurer makes an election under Subsection (a)
but, after having been served with a notice of intent to take a
deposition of the agent who is the subject of the election, fails to
make that agent available at a reasonable time and place to give
deposition testimony, Sections 542A.007(a), (b), and (c) do not
apply to the action with respect to which the insurer made the
election unless the court finds that:
             (1)  it is impracticable for the insurer to make the
agent available due to a change in circumstances arising after the
insurer made the election under Subsection (a);
             (2)  the agent whose liability was assumed would not
have been a proper party to the action; or
             (3)  obtaining the agent’s deposition testimony is not
warranted under the law.
       (e)  An insurer’s election under Subsection (a) is
ineffective to obtain the dismissal of an action against an agent if
the insurer’s election is conditioned in a way that will result in
the insurer avoiding liability for any claim-related damage caused
to the claimant by the agent’s acts or omissions.
       (f)  An insurer may not revoke, and a court may not nullify,
an insurer’s election under Subsection (a).
       (g)  If an insurer makes an election under Subsection (a) and
the agent is not a party to the action, evidence of the agent’s acts
or omissions may be offered at trial and, if sufficient evidence
supports the submission, a jury may be asked to determine the
agent’s responsibility for claim-related damage caused to the
claimant.  To the extent there is a conflict between this subsection
and Chapter 33, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, this subsection
       (h)  If an insurer is in receivership at the time the
claimant commences an action against the insurer, the insurer may
not make an election under Subsection (a), and the court shall
disregard any prior election made by the insurer relating to the
claimant’s claim.
       (i)  In an action tried by a jury, an insurer’s election
under Subsection (a) may not be made known to the jury.
       Sec. 542A.007.  AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES. (a) Except as
otherwise provided by this section, the amount of attorney’s fees
that may be awarded to a claimant in an action to which this chapter
applies is the lesser of:
             (1)  the amount of reasonable and necessary attorney’s
fees supported at trial by sufficient evidence and determined by
the trier of fact to have been incurred by the claimant in bringing
the action;
             (2)  the amount of attorney’s fees that may be awarded
to the claimant under other applicable law; or
             (3)  the amount calculated by:
                   (A)  dividing the amount to be awarded in the
judgment to the claimant for the claimant’s claim under the
insurance policy for damage to or loss of covered property by the
amount alleged to be owed on the claim for that damage or loss in a
notice given under this chapter; and
                   (B)  multiplying the amount calculated under
Paragraph (A) by the total amount of reasonable and necessary
attorney’s fees supported at trial by sufficient evidence and
determined by the trier of fact to have been incurred by the
claimant in bringing the action.
       (b)  Except as provided by Subsection (d), the court shall
award to the claimant the full amount of reasonable and necessary
attorney’s fees supported at trial by sufficient evidence and
determined by the trier of fact to have been incurred by the
claimant in bringing the action if the amount calculated under
Subsection (a)(3)(A) is:
             (1)  greater than or equal to 0.8;
             (2)  not limited by this section or another law; and
             (3)  otherwise recoverable under law.
       (c)  The court may not award attorney’s fees to the claimant
if the amount calculated under Subsection (a)(3)(A) is less than
       (d)  If a defendant in an action to which this chapter
applies pleads and proves that the defendant was entitled to but was
not given a presuit notice stating the specific amount alleged to be
owed by the insurer under Section 542A.003(b)(2) at least 61 days
before the date the action was filed by the claimant, the court may
not award to the claimant any attorney’s fees incurred after the
date the defendant files the pleading with the court.  A pleading
under this subsection must be filed not later than the 30th day
after the date the defendant files an original answer in the court
in which the action is pending.
       SECTION 4.  (a) Section 541.156, Insurance Code, as amended
by this Act, and Chapter 542A, Insurance Code, as added by this Act,
apply only to an action filed on or after the effective date of this
Act. An action that is filed before the effective date of this Act
is governed by the law as it existed immediately before the
effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for
that purpose.
       (b)  Section 542.060(c), Insurance Code, as added by this
Act, applies only to a claim, as defined by Section 542A.001,
Insurance Code, as added by this Act, made on or after the effective
date of this Act. A claim made before the effective date of this Act
is governed by the law as it existed immediately before the
effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for
that purpose.
       SECTION 5.  This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.  If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2017.


As you can see, the folks who are filing Hurricane Harvey claims are on an uphill battle before they ever get started.


We did not bring Hurricane Harvey, or any of the flooding. We cannot reverse the laws no more than we can reverse the destruction. What we can do… work to repeal this abomination of a law while we help folks recover with what is available now. In other words, we will continue to #ProtectTheInsured!

I am Cal Spoon, and yes I am in this business. Yes, before it is all over with, we will have worked these claims and hopefully made a profit. It is what we do. It has taken years upon years of knowledge to get where we are. We have successfully fought against nearly every insurer out there. Someone has to, and at last count, there were only approximately 750 people in this entire great state of ours who have this very special license. Never forget, the people who owe you the money are sending their guy out… 


My advice, file all claims prior to September 1st, 2017. This will not even come close to derailing this new law, but it will allow the one concession I am aware of, it will still cost them 18% when they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar.


Then hire a licensed, competent Public Insurance Adjuster.


Need a FREE Insurance Claim Review, fill out the contact form below, or call us toll-free at 877-41-2BUST

No Recovery, Absolutely No Fee!





Jul 112017

Facebook live video.

Sometimes, you have to hear things for yourself… so there I was, listening to a local State Farm agent advise an insured on whether or not to hire a private adjuster, otherwise known as a PIA. Herein lies just a tidbit of information on that process, coupled with an apology
The first way to #ProtectTheInsured the insured, is to inform them. Unfortunately for insurance companies, an informed insured does not equate to a happy insured, quite the opposite.
Nah… you don’t have enough damage to even cover your deductible… no, you don’t need a second opinion…

Yes you do.

May 212017

Justice misled, is Justice denied.

Justice misled, Justice Denied

There should never be a time when a state funded agency is recommending against using licensed professionals, unless those they are recommending against have done something specific, something wrong. 

This is just not the case. This article, Avoiding Scams After A Disaster provided by the self-proclaimed Insurance Information Institute. An “Official Sounding” entity. 

III membership

Now, how curious are you when someone actually starts asking questions that matter, and that have simple, factual answers?

Insurance Companies are their main source of revenue, so… listening to this garbage is akin to, well… allowing your insurance company to be the only knowledgeable person involved in your insurance claim.

This article is a perfect example of the crap that is peddled by our Departments of Insurance, the media, and “Official Sounding” websites or Non-Profits. There are multiple lies, not mistruths, lies. Your insurance company does not provide an adjuster for YOU, they provide one for THEM! Ask your insurance company, during a loss, and subsequent claim, when an adjuster arrives at my property, who do they represent, you or their employer? If they say you, they are lying. There are only three entities that can represent you in an insurance claim. You, which they prefer, because you are unrepresented and going up against an entity who does solely this, a licensed Public Insurance Adjuster, which we are, and we NEVER charge more than 10%, regardless if state statute limits or not. And, an attorney. There is a time and a place for an attorney, but it is not until after the insurance company has been given every legitimate reason to comply with the policy, and has failed.

Notice that “staff adjuster” or “independent adjuster” is not included. That is not by mistake. By deliberately pointing it out, I hope to point out that they are all not alike. Neither of these can work without the backing of an insurance company, which makes them “beholden” to that company.

A licensed “Public Insurance Adjuster” is here specifically to do that one thing. Adjust for you, and you alone. Not your roofer or contractor, and not your insurance company.


Oh yeah, most PIA’s work on a contingency fee basis, No Recovery, Absolutely No Fee!

This propaganda, put out by insurance companies, is completely phony. We have the number to prove it.

Should make every single person who reads this angry. They are trying to tell us, in no uncertain terms, that not only sending the person out that owes the money is a good idea, but that it is preferred over any other method.

But, is it?

There is no data that I am aware of, that would suggest that having your insurance company be the only entity involved in a claim, besides the insured. None. #Zero

However, on the contrary to their claim, there is lawsuit after lawsuit, after lawsuit, where everyone one of them have been found guilty of harming insureds. On a singular level, on an entire state level, yet, here they are they…

In my vast history of this industry, every time I have never witnessed an insured who received proper indemnification, unless there was a Public Insurance Adjuster, or both, a PIA and attorney.


Let them come, let them call me a liar. I can and will prove differently. 

Stay tuned, next article will have some BEA…utiful correspondence between the Texas Department of Insurance and myself, where they have taken to retaliation against me. Funny thing, I am not normally prone to making any far out there statements, yet, in my world, these insanities are being dealt with every day. Not only are they peddling their crap, they are running offense and defense out of the department we, as taxpayers pay for, against our better interest. Just sick and tired of it. 


Cal Spoon, 


As always, #ProtectTheInsured

May 202017
HB 1774 and SB 10, also known as #TheBlueTarp bills, and the Direct Correlation of HB 3293 also known as the Roofer Licensing Bill.
New Campaign Launched for and
For as long as we have had senators and special interests, we have had collusion between the two. One has money, the other has political power.

Cal Spoon 05/17/2017

One may wonder, what in the world is he talking about? Others, who are familiar with the machinations of the insurance industry, and government in general, will probably sigh, or gasp, depending on which party they are representative of.

The first thing anyone reading must understand, everything you can see, feel, and touch, save the ocean and the dirt on the ground, are insured.

Second thing, almost all intellectual property, money, stocks and all the things you cannot see, are also insured… think Liability, you are insuring against the off chance you make a mistake, in advance…

Third thing, and this is the kicker, if the above two statements are true, then #Insurers have a finger in EVERY SINGLE piece of pie, from insurance bills that are clearly from them and for them, HB 1774 and SB 10, to bills that in appearance, have nothing to do with them, HB 3293.

Okay, this is not rocket science. It is math, and knowing how to look past what you are being told, to what you are actually being shown. In today’s data rich environment, both are crucial.

Texas enjoys the 10th Largest insurance market… on the PLANET!

Insurance Restoration makes up a huge portion of the Texas Building Market. Roofing would probably be the largest part of that market.

HB 3293 would have installed a safety mechanism and Mitsubishi heating products that would only have helped Texas residents, by licensing the folks that work on their largest investments, their homes and businesses. Licensing, to me, means accountability. Texas cities, municipalities, and building departments would be nearly self funded through licensing and permitting fees of legitimate contractors who have performed all the necessary requirements to work for the citizens of Texas. Why in the world would this bill get killed, really before it ever got started?

The only entities that stand to be harmed are the no good roofers/contractors who do not perform under the rules… and #Insurers.

HB 1774 and SB 10 are companion bills that essentially ease the penalties of insurers who just decide they would rather leverage YOUR FREE FLOAT MONEY,than pay what they owe.

This is what one time Allstate CEO had to say about YOUR #FloatMoney.

“Jerry Choate, Allstate’s chief executive officer from 1995 to ’98, said at a news conference in New York in 1997 that the company’s new claims-handling process had reduced payments and increased profit, according to a report in a March 1997 edition of National Underwriter magazine. Insurers can’t make significantly more money just from cutting sales costs, he told reporters. “The leverage is really on the claims side,” Choate said. “If you don’t win there, I don’t care what you do on the front end. You’re not going to win.”

The more cash insurers can keep from premiums, the more they can invest. This pool of assets–most of which the companies invest in government and corporate bonds–is known as float.

“Simply put, float is money we hold that is not ours but which we get to invest,” billionaire Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., wrote in his annual letter to shareholders this year. “When an insurer earns an underwriting profit, float is better than free,” he wrote in 2006. Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway generated 51 percent of its $11 billion profit in 2006 from insurance.”

So, we have a clear understanding, they are using our premiums that are owing to us and fellow insureds, to buy into our government…

Roofers, Builders, and Skilled Tradesmen, this is your wake up call, coupled with a call to action. If you want to know why you never get paid correctly when doing insurance restoration, pay very close attention, then contact Governor Abbott and tell him, stop the nonsense, put Texans first, that means insureds and contractors alike, and revive HB 3293, and kill those no good companion bills HB 1774 and SB 10.

Here’s why:

There used to be a Texas license, called TRCC. I held two at the same time. Patrick Cordero was the head of that department, and at one time, a client, who continued on to be a friend.

Here is from the TRCC government website.

III membership

Now, we agree, Texas has no legislation regarding building/roofer licenses, even though all other trades are licensed. HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and several others, even in unincorporated counties, these rules still exist, for that license holder.

Now, understand that none of these are considered a builder. A builder would be the one that directed each and every one of these trades, tie them all together, and make the project happen. In fact, without the builders to put all the other together, nothing would get built, and there would be no responsible party to point to. Now you have to ask yourself, why in the world would we require all these trades to have licenses, yet not the person who is responsible for all them? (Lon Smith Roofing, for example. His roofers did not lose, his sales staff did not lose, his suppliers did not lose… he did, or the corporation.)

Now, let us take Florida, who has some of the heaviest, and best regulation for building in the known world. Every single person working has to be licensed or attached to a license holder, have valid workers comp on site, with ALL on site listed on that sheet, if not… last I checked, up to $24,000.00 fine, per person not on list. Permits must be pulled by the license holder, and multiple inspections done to insure that each step was done properly, and signed off. (If I remember correctly, Jupiter had 5 inspections on a single roof.) Their departments rake in a ton of money. Licensure, permits, inspections, all charged for. Texas has this same ability to not only make things safe, but also fill the coffers of their departments, instead of using tax dollars.

Following prices were pulled straight from Xactimate, on May 2017 price list.

The cost of a square of 30 year shingles in Dallas, Texas today is $244.20before/if they pay 15% respectively for Overhead and Profit it totals $326.14

The cost of a square of 30 year shingles in West Palm Beach, Florida today is $314.05 after they pay 15% respectively for Overhead and Profit it totals $417.92

My wording is not a mistake. Texas, and most states play games with O&P. There are numerous sets of criteria that changes depending on the circumstance. I say they change because the insurer makes up or uses whatever excuse they wish to deny it, and save a minimum 10% Overhead and 10% profit (Should be 30%, which is what any bank would require before they loaned you money.)

Florida on the other hand, by regulation, advertently or inadvertently, forces this to kick in… licensure.

So to recap. Florida pays $69.85 more per square than Texas, pre O&P, and $91.08 after.

Why? Licensure.

There is a very clear picture here for anyone who wants to look. In Texas, carriers stand to lose roughly a $100.00 per square of every single square of shingles they pay for in Texas. Now take those O&P numbers and throw them on every single estimate the carrier writes, on every single item on that estimate. All municipalities are harmed by the lack of this, as well as all the residents, and our children, and their children.

I am a PA, yes, but I am also a Husband, a Father, a Grandfather and taxpayer.  I am a Texan, and very proud of it. I am also human, and sick and tired of my government being sold to the lowest bidder, and yes, I mean lowest. This is the exact same reason I began I was fed up as contractor, as a homeowner, and as a relative and friend to so many who had been harmed. I figured out how to fix it, and have been doing so with a vengeance for nine years now.

This is as brief as I could be, and still get a point across.

The benefits of HB 1774 and SB 10 are to limit exposure to insurers, and it is approved and on the Governor’s desk. This is a protective measure for insurers only. There is no benefit to the insured, quite the opposite.

HB 3293 was meant to limit harm done to Texans by installing a simple licensing and registration system to ensure quality folks do quality work for our residents at home, and it never made it out of committee. (It would also make the worthless “improper installation” denial a lot harder to stick, after it was permitted, inspected, and approved.)

Stop the madness and abuse of our rights, click his name above or here, Governor Greg Abbott, (Goes straight to Texas Governor Website Contact Page.) and tell him exactly what is on your mind.

Cal Spoon
Restored version 05/22/2017
Mar 092017

Insurers and Xactimate… One and the same.

Insurers and Xactimate… One and the same.

When Xactimate says, “The painter normally removes electrical plates and light fixtures during their normal work process.”

This is the painter’s idea… Why the painter makes $25.00 an hour and the electrician $77.00.


No disrespect, just #trade specific.

This is all done for one reason… the carrier said so.

Who is the single beneficiary of this illegal tactic? You get three guesses, and the first two do not count.


Who does it harm? Every single person/entity involved in the claim process, up to, but not limited by, all the folks from the trickle down effect of where that money was actually going to be spent by the hard workers who earned it working in the streets or from home, of course with staff working from home the use of this guide on how to monitor staff working from home it’s very useful. The insured, me, you… and everyone else, save… insurers.

NEC (National Electrical Code) is clear, two people can touch a mechanically attached appliance. Be it an air register, electrical plate, or faucet. The person who is licensed in that trade, or the owner. I would never suggest the latter do their own work.

Homestead Permit. A person who is not licensed to perform electrical work may perform electrical work at his or her homestead if all of the following requirements are met:

(a) the residence is the person’s homestead and principal residence;

(b) the electrical work does not include the main electric service;

(c) the person has not secured a homestead permit for another residence within the prior 12 month period;

(d) the person has owned and occupied the property as of January 1 of the tax year in which the person applies for a homestead permit;

(e) a person must obtain a homestead permit and pay required permit fees before beginning any electrical, mechanical, or plumbing work. A person must apply for a homestead permit in person and must file an affidavit stating that the location at which the work is to be done is the person’s homestead;

(f) a person who has obtained a homestead permit may not allow or cause any person to perform electrical, mechanical, or plumbing work under the permit. The building official may suspend or revoke a homestead permit if work done under the permit is performed by anyone other than the person who obtained the permit;

(g) a person may not transfer a permit to another person;

(h) a person performing electrical, mechanical, or plumbing work under a homestead permit shall present a picture identification to verify that the person is authorized to perform work under the homestead permit when requested by the building official or his designee; and

(i) a homestead permit shall not be issued for electrical, mechanical, or plumbing work on a mobile, modular or manufactured home unless the homeowner owns the land on which the mobile, modular or manufactured home is located. A homestead permit shall not be issued if the mobile, modular or manufactured home is located in a mobile home park, mobile home community or other commercial premises.

Following link from Justia:

2005 Texas Occupations Code CHAPTER 1305. ELECTRICIANS

§ 1305.151. LICENSE REQUIRED.  Except as provided by 
Section 1305.003, a person or business may not perform or offer to 
perform electrical work unless the person or business holds an 
appropriate license issued or recognized under this chapter.
(11)  "Electrical work" means any labor or material 
used in installing, maintaining, or extending an electrical wiring 
system and the appurtenances, apparatus, or equipment used in 
connection with the use of electrical energy in, on, outside, or 
attached to a building, residence, structure, property, or 
premises.  The term includes service entrance conductors as defined 
by the National Electrical Code.

Xactimate now actually flags D&R items where paint is the only other trade, and tell you to remove the line item because the painter does this…

Illegal and very profitable… Done way before you paid any premium, and certainly before you ever filed a claim… Premeditated. Just another way they have figured out how to not pay a portion of your claim.

Have a great day, and when you catch them doing this stuff, speak up.

Only way I know how to #ProtectTheInsured