Taking issue with several points in Melanie Elias' column inthe May 2012 issue of Claims magazine and the May 21, 2012issue of National Underwriter (“IndependentAdjusters Must Be Agile, Responsive”), the general counselof the American Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (AAPIA) offers his rebuttal on severalpoints.

In her original article, Melanie Elias states:

As previously mentioned, most states require independentadjusters to be licensed. Independent adjusters must adhere tocertain rules and regulations that pertain to dealing with thepublic to protect the public's best interest. Initial contact withan insured, inspection, estimates and payment must all take placewithin stringent timelines.

It is critical that the independent adjuster prepare anestimate for repair of the covered damages that is comprehensiveand fair. Public adjusters usually have no specific state-licensingrequirements and may not have the background, training andexperience of independent adjusters.

It is wholly inaccurate to state, as Elias does, that publicadjusters usually have no specific state-licensing requirements andthey may not have equal background training and experience asindependent adjusters.

Public adjusters are fully licensed in 45 of the 50 states andthe District of Columbia. Contrast this state licensure of publicadjusters to that of independent adjusters, who are only requiredto be licensed in 34 out of the 50 states plus the District ofColumbia.

Rather than substantively change the foregoing passage writtenby Elias to conform with the facts, the revised article reads:“Even though public adjusters are licensed in 45 states andWashington, D.C., they still may not have the background, trainingand experience of independent adjusters (based on my observationsin my 30-plus years as a claims professional).”

Regrettably, this remark is an anecdotal opinion claimingnonfactual information based on the experience of an individualwith claims experience exclusively representing P&C insurersand third-party administrators.

Elias also states the following:

A third issue affecting independent adjusters today involvesworking with public adjusters. During the adjustment of claims, theindependent adjuster often deals with public adjusters whorepresent the insured. While some adjusters serve the insured well,we find that, in most states, public adjusters are not held to thesame standards as the independent adjusters. This standard varianceis a major issue facing independent adjusters today.

This foregoing passage has not been changed in the online version of this article. We are specifically concernedthat Elias writes that she finds that “in most states, publicadjusters are not held to the same standards as the independentadjusters.” The plain facts regarding licensure of publicadjusters, as well as the continuing-education and certificationrequirements, clearly undermine the credibility of thisstatement.

Without asserting any potential for biasrevealed in the articles, it is noteworthy that nowhere in thearticles authored by Elias does she provide citation or discussionof any study or report that provides support for her anecdotalopinion about the respective standards of public adjusters andindependent adjusters.

We would reference the January2010 report issued by the Florida Legislature, Office ofProgram Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA),Report No. 10-06, which discussed the public-adjusterrepresentation of policyholders in claims insured by CitizensProperty Insurance Corp.

The report analyzed Florida's public-adjuster law, which iscomparable to and in some cases more stringent than those of othersimilar states in public-adjuster licensing requirements andvarious consumer protections.

This report analyzed data for all claims filed with Citizensfrom March 2008 to June 2009 for a total of 76,321 claims, of which21,545 had public-adjuster representation, compared with a group of54,776 claims that had either no representation or were representedby someone other than a public adjuster.

For catastrophic claims the difference in payments was 747percent higher, and for noncatastrophe claims the difference inpayments was 574 percent higher for those policyholders who used apublic adjuster.

Additionally, many states have continuing-education credits forpublic adjusters, for which AAPIA sponsors seminars to assurecompliance. AAPIA is an approved education provider in certainstates for continuing-education course credits required forlicensed public adjusters.

Our organization also monitors legislation in all 50 states andhas communications programs that educate and inform publicadjusters and policyholders on ethical standards andprofessionalism.

Once again, we are not aware of continuing-education creditsrequired for independent adjusters, and therefore it is apparentthat the representations made by Elias in her articles are simplynot accurate.

APPIA was also active in the 2005 passing of the Public AdjusterLicensing Model Act by the National Association of InsuranceCommissioners (NAIC). The NAIC Model Act—which governs thequalifications and procedures for the licensing of public adjustersand specifies the duties and restrictions on public adjusters—hasnow been enacted in 14 states.

The NAIC Model Act has also adopted the National Association ofPublic Insurance Adjusters' code of ethics (found online atwww.napia.com) as part of thestatute. We are aware of no similarly enacted code of ethics thatapplies to independent adjusters in any state. Elias' remarks thatin most states, “public adjusters are not held to the samestandards as independent adjusters,” again, are simply notsupported by the facts or the law.

Our association is proud to serve the public as a consumeradvocate as well as the public-insurance-adjuster industry throughsupport, education programs and assurance of compliance withethical requirements.