Apartment Complex
Carrier paid an additional $75,000 for replacement of roofs, where original assessment was for minimal repairs.

Metal Manufacture Facility
Original estimate from the carrier was $520,000, consulted with the agency and the policyholder and determined there was an additional $170,000 in damages that were not noted from the carriers estimate. Able to explain the additional damages to the carrier for a supplemental payment for the said amount.

Gaming Manufacture
Argued temporary assistance and additional clean up in excess of additional $35,000.

Residential Coastal Property
Original assessment from insurance carrier stated the property sustained repeated water exposure, therefore no coverage. Sent reply in hopes for them to send an engineer, which they did, met with the engineer and the claim was reversed in favor of our insured.

Employee Christmas Party
Insurance carrier denied the claim as it was not during work hours. Obtained services with Burdett, Morgan, Williamson and Boykin, LLP BMWB , a law firm associated with the IAN Group for assistance in matters such as these, involved and sent a letter stating it was on the job and gave proper case law to back it up. Insurance carrier reversed their stance and paid.

Hail Claim
Insurance carrier denied hail damage to a wood shake roof stating there was only minimal hail markings and that is had not damaged the shingle. The IAN Group got involved, asking for us to inspect the roof to determine if the carrier was correct in their assessment. Due to the complexity of damages that appear on wood roofs, it takes special knowledge to know structural damages vs cosmetic damage. After our inspection we were able to note, through our directional slope test squares that the impact marks had created a split in the shingles noting “damage”. Insurance company determined there was hail damage and paid for the claim as a total loss.

Premise Liability – Parking Stop Claim
Insurance carrier denied claim stating the parking stops were not made to be hit and the rebar on the stop is made to spring up if damaged. A story had to be told to the carrier about the parking stop and the liability that was placed on the maintenance of the parking lot. We attached a “go-pro camera” on the undercarriage of our truck and created a story with the help of the video showing that there was a maintenance issue with the “parking stop”. Insurance carrier reversed their call and paid for the damage to the bumper of the tenant.

Storage Tanks
Policyholder had a storage tank that “collapsed” with their product of about $75k in the tank. The tank was not listed on the property. Before we turned it in we explained in the loss notes that the product was in the care, custody and control of the policyholder, even though it was at a different site. They paid for the claim.

Small Business Enterprise Center Recipient
With the assistance of the WTA&M Enterprise Center (www.incubationworks.com) the IAN Group was selected as a winner out of 70 participants due to the validity and promise the IAN Group shows for support of customer service.

Oil field RC reimbursement 2 years past statute
Due to provisions in the policy the carrier denied paying the additional $400,000 for replacement cost. IAN Group was brought in to review the policy and endorsements. It was determined that there was an extension for the additional reimbursement. A story had to be created to explain to the carrier the reason on the delay, which was done and payment was issued.

Oilfield Operation
IAN Group was asked to be part of a proposal presentation on a prospect that exceeded $950,000 annual premium. We were asked to do our presentation of the IAN Group, at the end of the proposal presentation there was one question from the client, “Where were you when I needed you last year?” Needless to say, the agency won this account and we have been able to help direct and illustrate claims for the benefit of this customer.

Oil Field Operator
This particular agency was the incumbent but their premium was being beat by the challenger by over $90,000 (account size was $625,000). IAN Group was asked to be part of a proposal presentation and for us to demonstrate our services we have to offer. Due to the high volume of claims this particular client had, he was very keen on what could happen and wanted us in his corner. His remarks were, “the services you (the agency) are able to offer through the IAN Group offsets the difference in the premium.

Fire loss –exceeded policy limits structure underinsured
Discussed the loss and policy limits with the policyholder and agent. Policyholder was admitly upset at not having enough coverage for the replacement of the building. Discussed many options for replacement with the funds that were received. The policyholder was pleased at the outcome as was the agent (as he avoided an E&O claim).

Hail loss
Largest account for this particular agency. The settlement offer included a penalty of 33% due to incorrect ITV that was issued by the agency. IAN Group was brought in to discuss the loss and to review documentation of the ITV. It was determined that the carrier had inspected the property and agreed to the ITV that the agency had issued. Therefore a payment was issued in full for the customer.

Successfully helping to defend bad faith insurance allegations from plaintiff counsel against large carriers throughout the Texas Panhandle.  Thus far we have been able to make our stand in court and have won each jury verdict.

Incumbent of a $600,000 premium vs competitor bid of $520,000 – client stayed with the incumbent due to the relationship with the IAN Group and prior claims that were handled. “It is because of the IAN Group and their way of seeing coverage, even when the carrier didn’t, made a lasting impression. We were on the verge of being out over $35,000 (net commission), if our agency hadn’t been in partnership with the IAN Group.” The IAN Group charged approx. $4,700 to help assist and consult about the above mentioned claim. Now, it appears it saved them a $600,000 account.

A particular agency was vying for business of a $925,000 account that had been with the incumbent for a number of years. The agency brought in the owner, Trent Phillips, at the proposal meeting to explain what the IAN Group is and does. The owner of the business had just suffered a loss to which he believed was not at the fault of his employee, but the agency in hand was unable to properly describe the loss and issues. When Trent was able to ask the proper questions and educate the owner of the claim and why, the owners response was, “where were you when I had this claim, and I’ll be damned if I go through another claim without you.” Needless to say the agency that had subscribed to the IAN Group now has that account. The cost to travel to and meet with their prospect cost $1,900. Not a bad return on the investment.

The challenging agency of a $1,200,000 oil account called the IAN Group to sit in at the proposal to answer questions about a couple of claims that were not paid from their current agency. Questions were asked by the IAN representative and it was quickly noted that the current agent had not offered nor explained a certain piece of coverage. The current agent had conveniently side stepped this important denial of coverage in hopes to continue to represent this account.