Equipment & Machinery

A few years ago the author had an article printed in the Feb. edition of the nationally distributed Claims magazine. The Title was “How to Spot Contractor Fraud”. It described a few basic things to look for when seeking out Contractors who were not competing fairly and were blackening the eye of the Restoration Industry. By necessity, the Insurance Industry, looking to avoid the constant examination of many to catch the few deceitful operators, have chosen to utilize more TPA’s who boast of their success in limiting fraud, deceit and overbilling practices as a way to gain clients for Mitigation programs. These TPA’s have taken on the dirty work of rooting out the bad guys. In short, doing what Claims Folks with more and more work and less resources, are unable to do themselves.

The differences between Large Losses and various other types of losses can be startling. For example, a Factory Fire at a plant that uses Heavy Machinery may lose its office operations but sustain moderate damage to the machinery floor itself so all efforts turn toward getting the manufacturing capacity up and running as quickly as possible while you can bring in portable office space, telephone capabilities and utilities, quickly and easily in order to give the outside world the appearance of a company who is highly functional despite the catastrophic loss of it operating facilities. In short order, they can be taking calls, receiving orders, fulfilling orders and the like with the capable skills of a trained and experienced large loss specialist familiar with such activities. Prompt Mitigation work to wipe down that machinery is critical in limiting loss.

During many of the 35 CE classes I taught in 2009 I was asked to address a growing concern among the Insurance Industry; adequate Insurance coverage. Whether it is used as a method of control over rising costs or simply a shortcut designed to save money in a tight economy, more and more Restoration firms are chosing not to pay for the necessary and growing list of risks that are associated with the nature of Restoration work today. Because of that, I was asked to address the issue in writing about the risks associated with this type of work and the need for such coverage to protect the general public and the Insurance Carriers themselves who may be involved in referring companies who do this work.

During many of the 35 CE classes I taught in 2009 I was asked to address a growing concern among the Insurance Industry; adequate Insurance coverage. Whether it is used as a method of control over rising costs or simply a shortcut designed to save money in a tight economy, more and more Restoration firms are chosing not to pay for the necessary and growing list of risks that are associated with the nature of Restoration work today. Because of that, I was asked to address the issue in writing about the risks associated with this type of work and the need for such coverage to protect the general public and the Insurance Carriers themselves who may be involved in referring companies who do this work.

Recently I saw another very good company describing with great pride their recent entry into the Green Movement by buying much more fuel efficient vehicles demonstrating their understanding of environmental impact. We here at CPR have always understood and put our money where our mouth is, literally for years now.

It was recently reported that someone had “allergies to ozone”. You cannot have allergies per se to Ozone. Ozone chemically neutralizes (bonds with) Carbon molecules. However, someone can have a ‘reaction’ to too much Ozone (O3). That is why we use it sparingly and don’t over-ozonate. Free radical oxygen (off-gassing from O3) is not an issue. It is the O3 itself that is chemically unstable and looking for Carbon to bond to. Humans have a small percentage of Carbon and therefore it does become a Respiratory irritant at a chemical level in the form of neutralizing carbon in lung tissue microscopically.