Can you tell me how Compliance Depot responds to a client when the client asks for "primary and non-contributory" language to be included on the certificate?
When a property owner or manager asks for the certificate to include "primary and non-contributory" language, the long-hand version of that phrase says, in effect, the Insured named on the Certificate has the primary responsibility for coverage in the event of a claim, and all other parties (including the Additional Insured) do not have to pay any claims out of their insurance policy. The problem is, when the Insurance Agent puts this wording on the Certificate, it is not necessarily a part of the policy. Thus, the certificate does not reflect the true policy coverage. The Agent cannot amend the policy; that is the underwriter's job, because the coverage affects the premiums. The Agent can only send requested revisions to the underwriter and then wait to see if the coverage will be provided as requested.
I had one Agent refuse to put this language on a certificate because the policy itself did not provide that coverage. He actually said to me it was "illegal" to include it. Whether he was correct or not I do not know. But this type of wording is certainly wrong. See these links:
(Note the phrase, "impossible to comply with the request.")
If all Compliance Depot reps are licensed agents they (and you) should already know this. They should be advising their owner/manager clients NOT to include this wording as it either misrepresents the policy or, if the policy itself already has such a provision, is redundant and useless.
Which part is incorrect?
According to the General Insurance Services link I provided earlier:
"In liability insurance claims, when two policies cover the same loss, one usually applies on a primary basis and the other on an excess basis. This means that one will pay first (the primary policy). . ."
The owner/management company are at the "top of the chain" so to speak, and the vendor is, in essence, a subcontractor, listing the Owner and/or management company (along with Compliance Depot when they are involved) as Additional Insureds. The primary and non-contributory language puts the subcontractor's insurance as the primary contributor. The same site also says:
". . . the subcontractor’s policy is automatically primary. The form’s wording makes the insured’s coverage excess over any policy that has added the insured as an additional insured by endorsement."
So I am not incorrect in my understanding of the "primary" part, am I? If so, please explain.
What about "non-contributory?" See the link above at IRMI, which says:
"Noncontributory as included in 'primary and noncontributory' is generally understood to mean that contribution will not take place—there will be no contribution. Put differently, 'noncontributory' is casual shorthand that is to mean contribution will not be sought."
The wording on certificates is always that the Insured's coverage will be primary and "all others will be non-contributory." Taken with the definition provided above, the attempt is to say that the Insured will pay all claims singularly, first via his insurance and then, if the claim is in excess of the policy limits, the insured will pay out of pocket as he has relinquished his right to seek "contribution" from the Additional Insured to offset the claim amount - in other words, "all other" insured's policies will not be expected/required to contribute to any claims awarded.
If I am still incorrect, please clarify what this terminology actually means.
Jack, I do not see any difference between my first definition and my second. What am I missing?
My guess is that they (the complaining parties) probably have the same experience as I do with Compliance Depot - It takes up to 2 months for Compliance Depot to process paperwork, and this is when I am constantly emailing them reminders and following up on my own to check to see if (as if there approval is The Holy Grail) at last they have completed our paperwork - and our invoices are already becoming past due now, which of course the manager refuses to pay a finance fee - he/she should only call us when we have been set up - but it doesn't work this way - so I basically have to pay Compliance Depot to make sure I am not a terrorist and that my insurance is up to date - and DO NOT FORGET to cross a T or dot an I - or back to the beginning. We do follow the rules, we follow rules to a fault at my company. Yet, I too would have complaints regarding Compliance Depot. All of the money that they collect from the vendors in Houston; yet cannot even be bothered to become a member of the Apartment Association. To me, they have a lot of issues still to be resolved, yet do not seem to find any fault/flaw with their processes.
Seems odd to me....
RMIS came not long after Compliance Depot started up and has Lincoln Property Company and Fairfield Residential as clients.
Notivus is a new credentialing company that signed on First Communities, RAM Partners, and Matrix Residential.
Vendor Verify just started up recently and has Cottonwood Residential as a client.
And I got a letter earlier this month from NetVendor representing Carroll Organization.
Anyway, I'm wondering if any of you out there can comment on RMSI, Notivus, or Vendor Verify. Looks like they are getting some big clients. Surely they've targeted companies out there who currently use Compliance Depot--because it seems like an easy sale to me!
The only way Compliance Depot would have outdated information is if the agent or vendor did not have it updated
The $85 also pays for the processing an housing of the vendor agreement.
Without verification, I was unable to discern whether Jack was fraudulently posting as a representative of Compliance Depot. That's a pretty serious thing to do, and quite probably illegal. I gave him several chances to talk to me to clear things up, but he never communicated with me privately in any way whatsoever to help me figure out whether he was who he says he was. Even after he was pretty flippant with me telling me he didn't have to verify anything, I still gave him more time just in case. At that point, I was unable to verify that he wasn't fraudulently posting in order to hurt Compliance Depot, and decided to react to the situation by removing posts that could be considered harmful. What you seem not have noticed is that I left up all the other posts that were not positive, and sometimes downright negative, to Compliance Depot. This was not across-the-board censorship - this was addressing the issue of possible fraud. If this was all because I was supposedly paid by Compliance Depot, I could so incredibly easily just delete the entire thread and be done with it. Instead, I tried to save as much discussion as I could while removing potentially fraudulent posts.
Did you not see all the posts I made to try to head off the situation? Was that not abundantly clear? I'm just amazed that someone who supposedly knew me fairly well would suddenly throw so many baseless accusations my way.
If you look through MFI's discussions, you would see both positive and negative discussions about companies, many of whom are sponsors of Multifamily Insiders. We do not remove these posts, but rather encourage the companies to respond to the concerns and improve their own service if there are truths to the complaints. You make it seem as if there is all this censorship going on, which clearly isn't the case.
Although one could argue that we should have left up the posts and made notes that they were unverified (or some other solution altogether), I am shocked that you would make accusations about my integrity in the process.
I could attribute their loss of documents, multiple requests for insurance forms, and loss of account information to pure incompetence, but the attitude of glorified secretaries to me and my colleagues is inexcusable, even with the slim selection of literate office help in today’s market.
I would strongly suggest that vendors avoid working with this company, if at all possible. As market conditions improve we will indeed have a choice.
Property owners should also look for other service providers, who offer the same services, while maintaining a good working relationship with their vendors. You will eventually pay for the lack of rapport and poor vendor relationships, if not monetarily, than in the day to day service initiated by the first impression projected in your name.