Bulletin No. B-5.26
Requirements Related to Disputed Claims Subject to Appraisal

I. Background and Purpose
The purpose of this bulletin is to clarify the position of the Colorado Division of Insurance (“Division”) regarding the consumer’s rights when there is a dispute over the amount of loss during the claim handling process. Specifically, the bulletin provides guidance to insurers, insureds and licensed public adjusters, when a person or entity invokes their rights under the appraisal clause found in most, if not all, property insurance policy contracts.
Bulletins are the Division’s interpretations of existing insurance law or general statements of Division policy. Bulletins themselves establish neither binding norms nor finally determine issues or rights.

The National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters will hold its mid-year meeting on Decemver 10-12 in Scottsdale AZ.  Follow this link for registration information NAPIA EVENT


NAPIA Cautions South Carolina Insureds Victimized by Severe Flooding That Their Coverage Might Not Meet Expectations

 Potomac Falls, Virginia (October 16, 2015) – ‎ The National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (NAPIA) has cautioned residents and business owners of South Carolina victimized by the severe flooding in the state that their insurance coverage may not meet their expectations.

by Don Wood, TAPIA President
November 10, 2015

In 2013 a company that calls itself “the largest residential roofing company in Texas," lost a legal battle over its contracts and the services it offers its customers. Lon Smith Roofing & Construction was ordered by a federal magistrate judge to pay $275,000 in damages and attorney fees to a Fort Worth couple who claimed the company failed to keep its contractual promise to arrange with the couple’s insurance company to pay for a new roof.

Another spectacular and unusual win for policyholders!

Seventh Circuit Holds Insured Entitled to a New Roof for Purely Cosmetic Hail Damage

by Dick Bennett

The Seventh Circuit is becoming a difficult venue for insurers. In November we reported that the Court of Appeals had held that the phrase "continuous or repeated exposure" in definition of occurrence meant that a continuous trigger theory applied, leaving the carrier exposed to a claim for 11 years of