WBA staff professionals have had ongoing conversations with state legislators and those representing insurance providers on an effort to crack down on “storm chasers” in Wisconsin. After checking in with WBA Advocacy leaders we had a chance to sit down again with the bill’s supports in an attempt to come to a compromise on the bill.
Bottom line, we believe we are making progress on improving the bill as currently drafted to address a real issue in the state. We have hear of this being an issue with the most frequency from members in the South Central Wisconsin BA.
As a result of our recent meetings enclosed would be some key details of the compromise that is being considered:
•A business could not offer to rebate any portion of a deductable as a bonus or rebate when the consumer is involved in an insurance claim.
•The bill would only apply to the exterior of a one or two family home involved in an insurance claim on the exterior of the (roof or siding mostly). The current draft stated up to a four unit building and was vague on the application only to a job involving an insurance claim.
•A consumer must notify by initialing or checking a box in what would be a revisited WBA standard contract that indicated they were working with an insurance company on a claim that involved the exterior of a home. This is not part of the current bill draft and is necessary for the contractor to have a clear idea of what type of project they are dealing with.
•If the consumer indicates the job is part of an insurance claim they could cancel the contract after 3 days of hearing back from their insurance company (current draft is 5 days) if the insurance policy does not cover the cost of the project.
•Another important addition to the bill would be language tightening up the time frame that an insurance company must get back to a consumer to determine if the project will be paid in full by the claim.
•Possibly the most important change would be add language to clarify that a contractor can still talk to an insurance adjustor about the work to be done. That language would be similar to the IL law and would state: “nothing in the law would prohibit 1) providing an insured an estimate for repair, replacement, construction or reconstruction of the insured property and any such estimate may be submitted to the insured’s insurance company; 2) conferring with an insurance company’s representative about damage to an insured’s property; or 3) discussion repair or replacement options with an insurance company’s representative or the insured about options for the repair or replacement of the damage.”
•Moves back the effective date from 3 months after passage to 6 months after passage to allow the reformatting of standard contracts and to educate members and the public on the law change.
Any thoughts on the matter? Please e-mail me (email@example.com) to give your thoughts on the above bill or to get more information on the matter.