let me call to order. today's hearing entitled examining the insurance industry's claims practices following recent natural disasters. this is the first hearing of the subcommittee on disaster management, and i am delighted to work on this committee with my colleague, the ranking member, senator kim. this has been a great a great start to our what i hope will be a great collaboration. and i want to say a special thank you to our witnesses who are in the room. we'll have a chance to hear from each of you in just a moment. i'm going to introduce each of you, give you the opportunity to make an opening statement, and then we'll have some rounds of questioning before we start that, let me just say a word about what brings us here and the significance of this hearing. in the last year alone, disaster

waters have devastated communities across our country and the state of missouri, where i'm from. tornadoes have ripped across the state, leaving thousands without power, leaving homes damaged in some cases, leaving families without loved ones. hurricanes milton and helene have cut a brutal path through the southeast east, uprooting trees, destroying roofs, turning family lives into a nightmare. on the other end of the country, in california, brutal wildfires have burned entire communities to the ground. and these disasters have done more than cause property damage. that that is quite significant. they have done more than cause inconvenience, though, that can be harrowing. they have destroyed the lives of people. we're not talking here about minor inconvenience as we're talking about moms who've had to haul five gallon buckets of water because the pipes are gone. we're talking about grandparents who've had to sleep in their cars because there's no roof over their heads. we've talked we're talking about families who are maxing out their credit cards because they're insurance companies won't pay out any damage claims.

and that's what brings us to today's hearing. where do americans turn after catastrophes like the ones we've experienced just in the last calendar year? the answer is they turn to their insurance companies and they don't turn to their insurance companies for a handout. this isn't charity that we're talking about. they turn to their insurance companies because they pay premiums to those insurance companies. it's a contract. and by the way, it's required in law. americans are required to purchase property. owners are required to purchase insurance. and so they do so dutifully in every state in the union. and they pay their premiums due to fully in every state in the union. and unfortunately, time after time they find when disasters strikes in their moment of utmost need, the insurance companies come back to them and they delay and they deny and they offer excuses. and they send out to adjusters. and three adjusters and 15 adjusters. and 25 adjusters. and they constantly.

change the estimates. and at the end of the day, they just won't pay what is due, what is required, what is just and it's not a one off situation. it's not like it's happened to just one family. it is a deliberate strategy to maximize profits. we're going to hear about it today. we're going to hear about it in this panel. let me just give a brief overview of how it works. it goes something basically like this when a disaster destroys, let's say, your home, the insurance company send out an adjuster, often a third party adjuster. that person writes up a report often in good faith, doing their best to estimate the damages. and then what happens? then the insurance company intervenes. then the insurance company says you need to change the facts that you found. you need to change your estimate. so you need to change what's in the report. and they adjust arbitrarily. the award down. down. down, down. and the policyholder never knows. and the policyholder gets no say in the process. and the policyholder is left to try and put back together her

life as these insurance companies make billions and billions of dollars in profits, we're going to hear about it from the witnesses who are here today. and i will just say that even before today's hearing committee staff, my staff working with senator kim has done a thorough investigation that we will continue, we will be submitting into the record evidence today that we have gathered that will collaborate the testimony that you are about to hear. this is a system that we're talking about here. this is a system that promises homeowners that they are in good hands, that they will watch over them like a good neighbor. and after billions and billions of dollars in premiums are collected and pocketed by these insurance companies, the people who are left holding the bag are the policyholders. american citizens, at their moment of maximum despair. there's something wrong with that system. there needs to be some accountability, and we're going to do our best to start getting it today. with that, let me turn it over to ranking member kim for a

statement. thank you, mr. chairman. as this is our first hearing, i just want to congratulate senator hawley on his chairmanship, and i hope we will be able to continue a productive bipartisan work in this congress. and i thought the chairman really laid it out strong, which is that this is about where do people turn when a crisis arises, when they're in their time of deep need. so i'm grateful for the witnesses here for joining us and giving us your insights into the different experiences that you've had to try to elucidate what it is that we can do here in congress is to be able to make sure that the american people have that sense of assurance when they when disaster strikes, when they are in their time of greatest need. and that is a time when survivors are most vulnerable, and that is when many americans turn to their insurance company thinking that they have done everything right to prepare for the worst thinking that that they would be that the process

would work for them. and unfortunately, that help doesn't always materialize. and instead of being handed solutions, they are often met with more problems. my home state in new jersey is no stranger to this. and after superstorm sandy, insurance companies participated in the national flood insurance program were found to be wrongly rejecting or underpaying valid claims. since then, the problems have persisted. hurricane ida, another challenge that we faced cause another wave of damage through my state is not not it's not just in new jersey, but across the country. in florida, after hurricane ian, third party adjusters came forward and accused insurance companies of altering their reports to underpay disaster survivors. now we are here to examine additional disturbing claims that insurance companies are continuing to deny coverage and underpay claims. this is an important topic. i also just want to take the time, though, to be able to raise it as we move forward with this subcommittee's work that we

ensure that we're taking a holistic approach, grappling with the problems that american people face when they try to recover from a natural disaster. that includes having honest and productive conversation about the government's role, in particular fema, in the wake of a natural disaster. fema has been a critical lifeline for so many americans on the road to recovery. yes, it needs reforms. yes, there are changes that need to happen. but that is something that we can try to work on in a bipartisan way. emergency managers, first responders and other people in my community are deeply concerned about some of the rhetoric coming out of this administration, about abolishing or getting rid of it. already we're seeing some of the trump administration efforts to chip away at some critical programs. when we see the workforce shrinking, when we see canceling of the building resilient infrastructure and communities program. we have to take a step to be able to think through our role here in congress on this going for fema like private insurance

is one of the tools that the american people have available to them. you need both market solutions and the federal government to strength in resiliency and recovery in our country and people in disaster prone states that i've talked to have spoken about the fear and the uncertainty about what comes next when it comes to disaster recovery. and we owe it to them to be more transpower learn about this. the the administration has assembled a council to review fema disaster response. i think this subcommittee could make sure that we do our own due diligence so we can be prepared to engage in discussion with the executive branch about that best way forward. and the goal is always to ensure that the american people, in their time of greatest need and difficulty, can feel reassured that they are not alone, that they can turn to others for help, whether that be fema insurance insurers or others. we are facing some of the most intense natural disasters in our nation's history, but also living through a time of such distrust in government, public, institution, etc. congress must be vigilant about

any changes that may weaken the ability of the american people to tackle the disaster challenges they face. so i look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about their ground experiences and from the insurance companies about what they plan to do better in terms of serving policy holders. we may hear some harsh criticism, but criticism i hope that will work to rectify these problems. and i do want to make sure that we're commending that some of the insurance companies who are showing up today as well, to be able to hear that feedback. thank you. and i yield back. thank you very much, senator kim. it's the practice of the subcommittee to swear in witnesses who testify in front of us. so now i'll ask you to rise and raise your right hands and repeat this oath if you're willing. do you swear that the testimony that you will give today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? i let the record reflect that each witness answered in the affirmative. that's a good start. and with this, let me go down

the line here and introduce each witness and then give each of you the opportunity for an opening statement. and we'll start with natalia miguel. natalia is an allstate policyholder who lives in georgia and suffered extensive property damage following the devastation of hurricane helene. and with that, natalia, please go ahead. take your time. chairpersons, senators and members of the committee. my name is natalia miguel and i am here today representing my family, my husband, brad kozak, our 11 year old son. and nine year old daughter. we live in sandy springs, georgia, and our house is insured by an allstate homeowner's policy. on september 27th, 2024, at 5:30 a.m., our family was abruptly, abruptly woken by a loud crack, a massive 70 foot oak tree fell onto our home. this happened after persistent rain from hurricane helene.

we immediately called allstate to file a homeowner's claim. allstate's intake process was quick and we were promptly assigned an adjuster. the general description of the damage is as follows. while we can still live in the house, there is severe and structural damage to our roof on two separate building structures. damages are both internal and external. in addition, an electrical systems brickwork, gutters, lightings, doors and more or damaged. the total damage was very extensive and has been thoroughly documented and shared with allstate. all state's first inspection took place a few weeks later. our first adjuster visit took approximately 5 hours. the adjuster was very detail oriented and thorough. he spoke with us at length and to copious amounts of photos. he verbally confirmed what we suspected that this was a

significant loss. after the initial inspection, i followed the adjusters guidance and contacted the number of contractors, including but not limited to general contractors, roofing contractors, electricians, chimney landscaping and fence repairs. i was provided with a number of quotes which reflect the cost of living and cost of needed repairs to our to bring our house back to standard. these quotes were shared with allstate. however, before the adjuster could complete his report, allstate removed him from this file, stating that the process was taking too long. we called allstate many times about this to stress that we wanted to continue the process already in flight. nonetheless, allstate sent a new adjuster against our wishes and you inspection was scheduled and the process started all over again. the second inspection lasted under 2 hours and significant need. lot downplayed the damage. for example, that adjuster stated that he would include

money only for one half of the collapsed roof because he was not convinced that all of it needed repairs. i assure you that the entire structure structure did need repairs after the impact of the 74 tree in december. we received allstate's initial valuation of $46,000 and we were stunned. this amount did not begin to reflect the real world cost of the repairs and estimates from the contractors. it was perfectly clear that working with allstate will be increasingly difficult. on january 6th we retained matthew hunter of hunter public adjusting for an independent view of the situation. matthew conducted a multi-day inspection and can confirm to our fears. he also recommended hiring a structural engineer. we engage with shield's engineering group, whose report again confirmed our concerns are damage was extensive and the cost to restore our home was far beyond.

beyond allstate's offer matthew also formally requested that allstate reassign our claim to the large division loss large loss division despite repeated requests. these were constantly, consistently denied. on march 14th, we submitted our sworn proof of loss. of $497,000. only then did allstate reassign our case to the large loss team who appointed a third adjuster a few days later. matthew met with the third adjuster onsite. the adjuster reviewed both the engineering report and matthew's estimate and expressed no disagreements. he stated he would submit the full estimate for approval. however, the final estimate came back from allstate at just under $100,000. when matthew contacted the adjuster for an explanation and the adjuster confirmed that allstate had rejected his final his initial submission of over

$400,000, instructing him to remove numerous line items not once but twice until the amount was reduced to a fraction of the actual loss. this brings us to may eight months since the fell is that since the tree fell on our house, no significant repairs have been made. our roofing remains damaged and a hazard to our family. electric pole wires, visible doors difficult to close, fences broken and much more. as you can imagine, it is difficult to embark on the repair and reconstruction project without clarity on the budget. we are homeowners, not lawyers, not engineers, not insurance experts. we have been allstate customers for six years, since october 2019. during that time, we have paid our bills on time and in full. but when we needed allstate the most, they failed us. this is no longer about just a

roof. it's about the failure of a system that leaves families vulnerable after a catastrophic events. we respectfully call on this body for oversight to ensure that insurers are held accountable when they act in bad faith. delay, resolution, or make it financially impossible for families to restore their homes and their lives. thank you for your time, your service and hearing our story today. thank you very much. as miguel, our next witness is mr. nick schroeder. mr. schroeder is an adjuster who works for allstate through pilot catastrophe. he was the first adjuster to inspect rms miguel's home and he sitting just to her left. mr. schroeder, go ahead. thank you, senator. can you hear me? so i have worked as a licensed insurance adjuster for nearly six years, holding licenses in six states. during this time, i have inspected property damage and prepared repair estimates on behalf of over 17 insurance

carriers, including allstate and state farm, while handling claims for allstate following hurricane helene. i was assigned to investigate a property damage claims submitted by mrs. natalia miguel. my inspection revealed significant structural damage, including a slate roof impacted by a fallen oak tree. compromised framing in the breezeway. damage to an underground sprinkler system. and broken terracotta floor tiles. although i was initially directed to attribute the floor tile cracks to settling. where i saw, i lost my spot here. once i got near. oak, i was initially directed to attribute the floor tile cracks to settling and to recommend a repair rather than replacement of that breezeway roof.

i concluded that a full replacement was necessary due to split rafters and a cracked concrete underlayment. shortly before i finished my estimate, however, i was taken off the case and the claim was reassigned to a different adjuster. in general, my experience handling all state claims was marked by repeated frustrate. my estimates were frequently rejected or returned with requests or modifications that often reduced coverage. these changes typically involved reclassifying line items to minimize costs, such as coating a job for an electrician to a roofer, whether roof work is present, as in replacing an electrically powered roof vent. this recoding would then prevent the estimating software from prompting a labor minimum charge for an electrician to safely

disconnect and reconnect the hard wired vent. but more commonly, these changes were to simply exclude hail, damaged shingles due to wear and tear. in one case involving policyholders suzanne and dennis carter, i was instructed to deny shingle damage as wear and tear despite a visible hail impact marks of consistent size and shape as nearby dented roofing metal. although i provided a hail report confirming activity near the property on the reported date of loss, the claim was reassigned after i refused to amend the estimate to exclude the hail damage. in another case involving nicolette little, i was able to finalize an estimate only after arranging for my team lead to personally review and approve

it. at one point in allstate staff adjuster who was assigned to assist me in getting claims approved advised me to remove coverage for the wind damaged shingles based on a misunderstanding of standard damage indicators. he claimed creased he claimed decreased shingle was not wind damaged because it was not torn. however, industry standard indicators of wind damaged recognized across all carriers. i've ever worked for include torn shingles, blown off tabs and shingle creasing. making this directive contrary to basic industry training. in my professional opinion, the claims handling process i observed from allstate prioritized minimizing payouts often at the expense of accurately addressing documented

storm damage. thank you very much, mr. schroder. our next witness is mr. cliff milliken. mr. milliken is an adjuster who works for allstate through pilot catastrophe. he has a connection to mr. miguel as well. he was sent out to conduct a re-inspection of mr. miguel's home. mr. milliken floor is yours. i've worked as a claims adjuster for pilot catastrophe since 2014. a 2006 transition to a full time adjusting, working primarily for allstate and have been deployed consistently for over eight years. since 2020, absorption independent changes and allstate's claim handling that in my view, undermined the interests of policyholders and erode trust in the insurance industry. first, allstate is increasingly relied on third party non-licensed inspectors or so-called picture takers. instead of licensed adjusters to inspect damage properties. these individuals are not trained nor licensed adjusters. they merely take random pictures and upload them to a portal where an often inexperience

inside adjuster grabs a photo package, reviews and attempts to write an estimate. the s-pen is then sent to a reviewer who then determines coverage and off the mandatory evasions. this is without transparency, as the reviewers name does not go on the estimate. this process confuses policy holders who mistake the picture takers for adjusters and then the policyholder never has an in-person experience with the adjuster who actually some misstep through estimate. this process also increases the likelihood of missing damage, which is often to allstate's benefit field adjusters like me, you're in the best position to address the damage to a property. we are licensed and we are the ones who physically inspect the property in person and we have training to assist damage appropriately. after we as the adjuster inspect a property, we write an estimate which explains the observed damage and estimates the minimal cost of repair. second, allstate has stripped all field adjusters regardless of experience of decision making authority. adjusters now act just as glorified picture takers

submitting our work to the reviewer who approves or denies the estimate and dictates revisions. in the overwhelming majority of cases. allstate reviewers who have never been to the loss instruct the adjuster to alter and delete factual and causal findings. in our estimate. frequently, these alterations and deletions are simply false. reviewers at times force adjusters to use material not of like quality and not to consider engineer reports because they weren't ordered by allstate and to issue denial letters that the adjuster must sign even when the adjuster disagrees with the decision and believes it to be false. there is no option for discussion as the reviewers decision. that's final. if an adjuster resists the claim reassigned to someone who will comply. in most cases, the alterations and deletions drive the estimate down, meaning this many of the insurers receive less money than required to identify them. the loss as adjusters reproduce and have an integrity. so when forced to things that we

do not agree with, we feel obligated to express that with the insured. when i explained this to policyholders that i didn't make the decision, i was reprimanded and, told this is not permitted. in one case, i was sent out as a supplemental field adjuster to look at the property from this battalion. my girl and her husband while on site with the public adjuster, i reviewed the engineering report that was provided by the public adjuster, a brick expert. expert report again provided by the public adjuster and discussed the inspection results with the public adjuster. and while on site i agreed with the pay that the estimate over $400,000 appeared to represent the covered damages. i then reviewed all the information and drafted investment that considered the recommendations laid out by that engineer that would have attempted to bring them mcgill's back to the free lodge condition using the most cost effective option. my estimate totaled nearly $200,000. i felt i had figured a method of using chimney brick to make spot

repairs and replace the chimney with a similar product. saving allstate from replacing all the brick on the entire home. i then submitted my estimate to the reviewer who instructed me to make changes to my estimate. after doing so, i submitted a revised approved estimate for $100,000. there are about, i believe some of these alterations were wrong because they contradicted the engineering report. and the brick expert report without getting a second opinion from another engineer. these new practices are wrong, and the people most affected by them are the ones who lacked the resources to fight back. poor and elderly. allstate is even making it so difficult for those who do hire experienced contractors, public adjusters or attorneys to represent them that many merely lose interest and quit because of time involved is not worth the compensation and effort. the tactic seems to be working as designed as an adjuster. i'm ethically obligated to write accurate estimates that fully account for all covered damage regardless of the policyholders

demeanor or tenure. insurance contracts built on trust. promising ethical and fair claims, namely these new current practices risk violating that trust, leaving policyholders underserved. i urge this committee to investigate these practices to ensure that the insurer industry upholds this duty to protect policy holders, transparency and claims decisions, accountability for reviewers and restoring the adjusters authority could help rebuild trust and fairness. thank you for addressing this. thank you very much, mr. millican. our next witness is mr. doug quinn. mr. quinn is the executive director of the american policyholders association, which is a nonprofit that tracks and reports fraud committed by insurers against their policyholders. mr. quinn, it's good to have you. the floor is yours. i'm douglas quinn, executive director of the american policyholder association. we're a nonprofit watchdog group that monitors and reports uninsured fraud against property owners. the apa formed after superstorm

sandy. my home was flooded. i was at my weakest moment. and instead of helping me, my insurer hired u.s. forensics, an engineering firm who created or report that an independent engineer determined was false. my insurer denied coverage for the worst damage to my home despite being fully insured. it took me seven years to rebuild and get back home at 61 years old. this is one of the most traumatizing betrayals of my life. i was not alone and the sandy engineering fraud scandal. cbs news, 60 minutes and pbs frontline all reported on policyholders wrongly denied nearly half a billion dollars in claims. when asked if he participated in fraud and insurers claims executive i plead the fifth amendment. thousands of families paid for insurance as a safety net, only to be betrayed on their claims.

for many it was the end of the american dream as they lost their homes. this wasn't the first time insurers defrauded policy holders. and it won't be the last. epa routinely receives reports of insurer fraud. often the insurer will hire an engineering firm to inspect the property and write a report which will then be manipulated to reach a predetermined outcome. insurers are shield led by plausible deniability that the engineers commit the fraud. but the insurers are the ones driving it. they continue to use u.s. forensics and other fraudsters. insurers play the same shell game with adjusters. many adjusters inspecting homes aren't employed by the insurer, but rather by third party administrators. they are technically a separate company. these cpas are simply alter egos of the insurers and commit the same fraud. the engineers do trained

adjusters write an honest estimate only to be instructed to alter and delete facts by a reviewer. this isn't just a few bad. it's industry wide and has been for decades. it happened in katrina. it happened in sandy. it happened in irma. and it's happening right now. i worked in the insurance industry for 30 years. there are thousands of dedicated, honest professionals who take pride in helping families recover after a loss. many of those professionals would be appalled to learn what happens to policyholders during claims. those aware of the fraud are afraid to speak out and for good reason. in this regard, insurers are like gangsters. those who speak out get blacklisted, harassed and sued. after katrina, two employees blew the whistle on state farm's plan to shift claims to the national flood insurance program using systemic engineering

fraud. state farm sued the two sisters, but after years of litigation. state farm agreed to pay the federal government $100 million to settle the case. recently jordan lee, a young insurance adjuster, reported that a tpa he worked for altered his reports. the insurer that hired the tpa heritage insurance is now suing jordan for defamation, even though he did not accuse heritage of change in the reports, but rather the tpa. they employed, however, florida regulators recently hit heritage with a historic $1 million fine for multiple violations in handling of insurance claims. jordan is a kid. he doesn't have any money. most people believe that they're using. they're suing jordan not for money, but rather to silence he and other whistleblower. many assert that the insurance industry's playbook is to break

the law and ruin the whistle blower. i routinely speak to insurance insiders who are terrified of retaliation. if it wasn't for whistleblowers like jordan lee, journalist journalists like the washington post's brianna sacks and honest plaintiffs attorneys like stephen bush, we would never even hear about the fraud. in fact, all too often we don't. insurers are committing fraud and ruining the lives of the very people who pay them for protection. premiums are skyrocketing. americans receive less in claims. the american consumer is being squeezed. the fraud is about more than money. americans buy insurance protection in their weakest moments when their homes are wind damage or burned and they're scrambling to find for their family and schools their children. the last thing survivors need is a war with their insurance company. the stress destroys marriages

and spoils childhoods. the fraud also affects federal government when they're insured. denies valid claims. homeowners are forced to rely on fema and federal aid. the american taxpayer is now subsidizing the fraud. this would not be possible if insurer fraudsters were held accountable for their actions. but states have proven incapable of doing so. the epa has given gift wrap fraud cases to state authorities, only to have them languish without results. it's time for federal enforcement. it's time. federal prosecutions. time for these criminal organizations to be brought to justice. to this panel, i say the american public needs you. thank you. thank you very much, mr. quinn. our final witness is mr. jacob fertel. mr. viertel is a husband, a father and a state farm policyholder. he resides in north carolina. he and his family suffered

devastating damage to their home after a tornado, and he's here to testify to that effect. mr. fertel, the floor is yours. thank you. early on the morning of september 27th, my family was awoken by a tree crashing through our roof. my wife and in-laws who were in town visiting at the time, rushed into our toddler's room to make sure he was unharmed. the storm was still raging, so we moved my pregnant wife and child to the floor next to our kitchen island in our single story ranch home, where we felt it was safest before we lost power. i was able to file a claim with state farm. at that moment, i didn't realize just how severe the storm was. i was simply focused on figuring out where my family would stay that evening while on the call, we abruptly lost power and cell service for the next several hours, we sought cover as a total of four trees fell on our home and water poured through half the house. once the storm subsided, all five of us kept together for three days and what we assumed to be the safest section of the home with my wife pregnancy being high risk, it was critical that she had access to medical care and our two year old son

needed to save environment. the moment i could, i evacuated my family to my in-laws home in ohio with them safe. i returned to north carolina to begin the insurance and to find a place for us to stay. once water was restored to the area. our first inspection was the day farm was on october 7th, ten days after hurricane helene. the inspection seemed to go well enough. while on site, i spoke to the inspector about the ample additional living expense coverage included in our policy. you can imagine my dismay when i received a voicemail the next day walking the information he shared, instead stating our home was being considered habitable by state farm, a home where i watched water poured through the outlets where the sky is visible from our two year old's bedroom. our nursery to be our living room. and our bathroom. at that time, cell service asheville was still limited. so my wife from ohio was trying to speak with state farm. the few times i managed to get on the phone with her, she gave me agonizing updates about the undue stress being put on her as the basic commitments of our

policy were already being aggressively tied. it became clear we needed support and did not have the capacity to take this on ourselves. so we hired a public adjuster not long after our decision to hire a public adjuster was reaffirmed when we received our first estimate of the damage from state farm. the sum we were to receive would not even cover fixing the roof, let alone repairing our entire home. from there, we watched as our case was handled with little communication from state farm. emails went unanswered for weeks at a time. we were told that state farm had issued a payment on our claim on october 24th. that check did not show up. one month after the storm. i moved my family to asheville into a rental at our own expense. from this new home base, we spend months driving across town, trying to protect our house from further damage, draining tarps, securing setting rodent traps, doing all we could to prevent the pipes from bursting. covered only by tarps, our home struggled to retain heat during the mountain winter. during this period, buncombe county placed a placard on our home stating that the property not safe to occupy or enter.

after three months of no movement, we were hopeful things would finally start progressing. when state farm assigned a new adjuster to our case. the damage payment that was supposedly issued in october was reissued in december. however, we quickly lost hope again when it became evident that we were starting over from scratch, having to provide all claim information again. as it was, it was as if all information from the previous three months was lost. all the while, state farm communication remained scarce. re-inspection four discussed. then no one would show up and as little communication we did receive. it became clear that this new adjuster was not qualified to speak on general home construction and repair. we repeatedly reaffirmed the need for critical repairs, only to be met with the adjusters. opinion of. i don't think that is necessary. he dismissed formal inspections conducted by contractors and mitigation specialists. the broken trust is struggling to hold up our roof simply were not a matter of opinion. after 123 days of our home sitting untouched and relentless communication on our end, a re-inspection was finally scheduled. during this inspection, as we

stood staring at our gutted home, state farm's adjuster admitted that their initial estimate was too low and said he would be refiling for the policy limit. even so, an hour later we stood in front of the county's unsafe structure notice. as he told my now eight months pregnant wife that separate accommodations for our family were not required and that the county a notice which we had provided at least half a dozen times, did not matter in the eyes of state farm. despite, despite dismissing the need for coverage, this adjuster then admitted he was unfamiliar with our specific policy, instead setting a policy that did not apply to us. he went on to say that he would see what he could do about covering additional living expenses now that it was a winter after dealing with state farm for five months. it no surprise that when a revised estimate of the damages came through in february, only minuscule adjustments were made. expenses we had already covered personally and for which we had provided state farm with and with invoices were short paid. again, we found ourselves needing to continue covering expenses out of pocket while still being unable to fix our home. at that point, we sought legal assistance and were ultimately

forced to file suit against state farm. after 157 days, only after we took legal action. the structural engineer we had been requesting for months was finally sent by state farm. now, 228 days after the storm, our home remains untouched with no progress made. my wife, who is three months pregnant at the time of the storm, gave birth to our daughter two and a half months ago. our son turned three in april. what could have been just a blip in his childhood has become a major event in his life as he repeatedly asks to go back home. we need state farm to give us our life back. thank you for hearing our experience. thank you very much, mr. patel. thanks to all of the witnesses will now have some rounds of questioning. i will start and let me start with you, miss miguel. so it's september 27th, 2020, for hurricane helene hits hits georgia, hits your home, causing very significant damage. i think we've got a picture of some of the damage here. let's have a look. does this look pretty familiar to you?

it does. it looks pretty severe. i mean, that's a massive tree right there in the in the front part of your home. and you're an allstate policyholders that correct? correct. then allstate sends out an adjuster. you said pretty quickly just a moment ago, it was about three weeks after two very quick. three weeks after. all right. and that you were told at the time in this first inspection verbally that the adjuster agreed with you. this was very severe damage. is that fair to say? correct. i think we will be. have a second picture. let's let's look at another view of this, just to give a real impression. here's a breezeway that looks to be nearly completely destroyed. you can see some of that roof damage, quite extensive that you were talking about in your testimony. all of this looks familiar to you. i'm sure. yes. now, after this first adjuster agrees with you that, yes, there's very significant damage. what did allstate, when they finally came back with an actual assessment, a real number, what was that number? again? $46,000. $46,000. so you went to consider build

expense on your own. you hired your own independent adjuster to come back out and do all of this over again. and that person looking at all of this evidence, that person found that the damage was in the neighborhood of what? i'm sorry, can you repeat the question? yeah. how is your independent adjuster? how much did that person estimate the damage? 497,000 $497,000. allstate offered you 40, basically, correct. and you're still waiting for this process to be resolved all this time later. is that is that right? that's let me just ask you now, mr. schroeder, because you were that first adjuster who worked for allstate came out to look at this home. you were a field adjuster deployed for allstate through pilot catastrophe, is that correct? yeah, that's correct. and you were the first one to inspect miguel's home after the hurricane. is that right? yeah. and you went in person, i think. is that correct? yes. and you spent several hours, as

miguel said in her testimony a moment ago, you spent several hours doing a very thorough. is that your memory also? yeah, that's correct. and how serious would you say the damage was in your own just personal? extremely. probably the most serious that i saw on deployment. wow. the most serious that you saw on the deployment. which makes sense given these photos. so you start if i understand correctly, you start to prepare estimate for a full replacement of this breezeway right here. does that sound right? yeah, that's correct. but then you were in struck. did you were told by the higher ups, no, no, no, no, no. we're not going to do a full replacement. the breezeway. so only do an assessment for a partial replacement of the breezeway. that correct. yes. okay. so then you start working on that and you're working to try to get as big of a damage claim as you can for miss miguel in line with the facts after you've already been told, no, we're not going to do the whole thing. and then before you can even complete your work, you're taken off the case. is that right? yes. why do you think that happened?

i was told it was due to time. i was taking too long, but i don't believe that is the case. i think that all allstate saw from this and my recently estimate of being very thorough and complete and going back and forth with reviewers on coverage and that it was going to be a higher estimate and it would be more cost effective to reassign it to a an adjuster that would listen better. yeah, an adjuster who would who would lowball the lowball the policyholder, really? i mean, that's what we're talking about. you're removed from the case. it took it took three weeks to send you out to begin with. and then all of a sudden, boom, you removed once it looks like you're actually going to do some justice for miss miguel. let me just ask you more broadly, mr. schroeder, have you ever told to change estimates to reduce payouts? yeah frequently. and when you've pushed on this,

if if you've ever said no, what what happens then? if i say no, then the claims typically get reassigned due. they say either lack of compliance or other reasons. like i'm taking too long. in your experience, was this kind of thing a one off thing, or was this a pattern? this was definitely a pattern. is it fair to say then that allstate's priority in your experience, was not getting the best possible award for their clients? it was in protecting their bottom line, certainly in protecting their bottom line, yeah. mr. miller, let me just come to you because you were then and yet another adjuster in this same case sent out to look at miss miguel's property. you worked as a field adjuster for allstate through pilot catastrophe for about eight years. do i have that right? at least eight years, yeah. in that time, you have personally, inspector, hundreds of properties damaged after

storms of disasters. is that fair to say? thousands. thousands. and you're trained to determine the extent and cause of the damage and how much it costs to repair it. is that fair to say? yes, sir. all right. so let me just ask you about miss miguel's claim. you were assigned to re inspect her home, is that right? yes, sir. and you testified earlier that you went about that diligently. you could that there was very extensive damage, that was your initial impression. is that fair to say? yes, sir. and you reviewed all of the reports. it was an engineer report. by this time, there was the public adjusters report. you reviewed all of those things diligently. is that fair to say? yes, sir. when you submitted your report to allstate recommending, several hundred thousand dollars worth of payments to miss mcgill and her husband. what happened then? it was my estimate was rejected. i was advised to alter it to a lower figure. so you were told to alter the

estimate and alter your findings as well? i was told to. alter my estimate. i don't know that the findings was told to be altered. were the alterations tions that you were told to make, were those consist sent with your own review of the property and your own assessment of the damage? no, sir. did you write that up on a detailed estimate? what you were told to do? i did, yes, sir. and allstate in they would they sent that estimate ultimately to the property owner, is that correct? i'm obligated to send the estimate to the policyholder. and it does. is there any record anywhere the policyholder would ever know that your initial findings, your recommendations were rejected and somebody told you to come in and alter them? no, sir. let me just ask you more broadly, have you ever been told in other cases with allstate to alter or delete your findings?

absolutely. in fact, you testified just a second ago. i think that you were you were frequently asked to alter factual findings, delete material and sometimes include items that were false. did i hear you correctly when you said that? yes, sir. in the overwhelming majority of cases where you were asked to do something like this, did that cause the estimate to the policy holder to go up or to go down, to go down? what is your assessment of? what allstate's ultimate goal here is is it is it to pay out the policy according to the terms of the policy to best extent they can, or is it to protect their bottom line and to use you and your report as necessary to meet that end to make sure they make as much money as possible, 100%, to to use me to enable them to make as much money as possible. and you would say that this is a pattern. this isn't just something that happened one time. my goodness. miguel's pet case. you've been doing this for a long time and you've observed this to be a pattern with allstate and in the industry. i have. yes, sir.

thank you for your testimony, senator. thank you, chair. i'd like to just pick up right where we're at. actually, mr. schroeder and mr. milliken, you both refer to an ethical obligation with your work. can you explain to me and to those that aren't doing that work, what do you mean by that? is there a code of conduct, a code of ethics that you have to abide by for your license? mr. schroeder, to be. to do the, you know, an estimate that is true to, you know, what is honest and true. my evaluation, to be honest in truth, that's what i commit to do. yeah. mr. milliken? yes, sir. our ethical obligation is to take the damage that we identify and apply it to the policy and indemnify the insured the full value of what we have found to be damaged. and so with that ethical

obligation, you're now coming across people that you're engaged with in the insurance companies that are telling you to change your estimate. can you give a little bit more detail on who who is it that you're interacting with? you know, who are the people? what are their credentials in terms of being able to tell you or assess whether or not they think you are right or wrong? mr. milliken so there's a team of reviewers and i don't have access or or know their experience or background, their, um, their label. i believe as a vendor oversight team or team member or, or training member, but the. like, i think i kind of got sidetracked on, you know, where i mean, but it sounds like they're not necessarily abiding by that same or have that same obligation when it comes to ethics in terms of the code of conduct. they're not a adjusters in the same way that you are.

that's right. yes, sir. so there's been many times whenever i as an adjuster and i'm gonna experience a judge, i'm not saying i'm the best adjuster in the world, but there have been many times where i've worn out to losses, inspected and identified with my own eyes, held damage, for example, on roofs, and then submitted my findings to this new process of the reviewers. and the reviewers tell me that what i'm seeing is not healed. damage. well, i was there, i seen the hill damage to the siding. i see the hill damage throughout the neighborhood and i saw the hill damage to the they reject my estimate and tell me they're not going to prove it. so you're but you're not necessarily certain what expertise they have to be able to make that assessment, given that you were the one that was on the ground? i can't imagine they have any more expertise. and i do know, sir. yeah, the you know, when you're being told i mean, mr. schroeder, you were talking about how they were telling you

it's taking too long and that's why you were removed from this particular case. but you know, correct me if i'm wrong, but it sounds like if they remove, they'd have to basically start from scratch all over again. isn't that right? wouldn't that seem to take a little bit more time, too? yeah, that's correct. and that's exactly what happens. i actually had contacted mrs. miguel just to see out of my own curiosity, to check in a month after i had been removed and she had not received an estimate yet for those repairs. so i don't think that that was, you know, accurate in why i was removed from, you know, and in fact, you know, it's not just about the work that affects with you, mr. schroeder, but mr. ms. ms. miguel you know, i keep hearing from people that feel like these delays are intentional, that it's meant to try to discourage the consumers from the policyholders from continue on. did you feel that way with how you were treated and just how

the lack of response and some of the delays were? yes, absolutely. mr. viertel, you were also talking about just, you know, a significant delays and lack of communication. did you feel at times that this was intentional? absolutely. i feel it's a battle of attrition at this point. mr. milliken. we've come back to you with when you're being told to change and adjust. do you feel pressure or did you feel fear that if you don't make changes, that maybe you won't get future work from that insurance company before? yes, sir. i do have that fear i had i've had that fear. but i'm also a pretty stubborn person. so it's it's difficult to for me to tell something that's not true. so i've i've battled that quite extensively. mr. schroeder, it seemed like you were kind of nodding your head as well. do you that there have been times where you felt fear that, hey, look, if i don't make these

adjustments or, you know, they might be taken off that case or prevented or, you know, not given additional work by that company in the future. yeah, i certainly feel that way. and i think that's happened on this last deployment. you know, i had multiple claims that were at the end pull, you know, and reassigned due to, you know, an explanation that to me just it didn't make sense. and it was coincidental with the timing of of me. having disagreements with the virtual, you know, examiner that is just looking at a photo. when i was the only one, you know, of the two of us actually present to their inspection. there's, you know, there's a difference in a photo compared to it's only even a great photo is just a photo when you're there, you not only get a better

look, but you can feel i mean, you know, you have a better perception of what's going on and, you know, those disagreements to me, it it didn't make sense and it definitely it wasn't true. i disagreed and it got pulled off a lot of those. thank you, mr. you know, you're hearing all this. you're you hear all this constantly. i mean, you went through this experience yourself. you're asking, you know, you're here in front of the u.s. senate. you're asking for the federal government to be able to step in on something that you know, traditionally has been sort of state jurisdiction. and in terms of oversight, why is it that you think the federal government needs to in. what has been your experience engaging with the state level? and how is that not satisfied? you know, the ability policyholders to be able to get the kind of justice that they deserve. we have noticed a lack of action, senator, on the state level against criminal fraud. army prosecutors and attorneys

general all over america. routine them. have you ever prosecuted somebody from the carrier side for a consumer? the answer is invariably no. we see literally no prosecutions on the state level of people from the carrier side who are committing fraud to cheap consumer laws. we feel there's an issue with regulatory capture. in some cases, it's a limited capacity. budget strains, personnel strains. but we do believe that the federal government should be stepping in and investigating and prosecuting cases where the american consumer is getting cheated by their insurance company. thank you, mr. quinn. i yield back. senator rudy, thank you so much. chair. you know, florida is no stranger to disasters in fact, my state has suffered through some incredibly serious, damaging, tragic storms. and all too often i find myself speaking to floridians who are struggling to put they're not

just their homes back together, but their lives back together, because so much of our lives is embedded and built within our homes and let me just thank you all for taking time to be here today and to talk to us. i know coming to a senate hearing is no small thing. i want to thank the chair for putting this together and for making sure that we have two panels so that we can talk to a variety of people. we can only fit so many people here at the table right now. i think making sure that we are paying attention to the public discourse right now in terms of challenges and recovery and even some public stories about what is being found underneath insurance companies and claims and helping people recover. and i think the the worst thing we could right now is to not have a hearing like this to

address what is being said and the broader conversation in america, especially in states where we have suffered storms and, people are still right now trying to recover. obviously, as attorney general, i even had to sue representative of fema after the last storm. and so we know that we can't just leave everything to happen and trust that everybody is going to play according to the rules without some sort of oversight. and so i think it is important that you were here today to share your stories. and i also think it's important for our colleagues and for this subcommittee to learn more about what is going on just as we would expect insurance companies to do the right thing and live up to the policies they have offered and certainly have collected money and payment on. we know that is an every industry we have those that are good faith players and we have those that are that may seek to do harm or take advantage of a

tragic situation. and i wanted to ask you, ms. mcgough, i know that you have specifically had a a bad experience and i wondered i think i think you mentioned you had the one adjuster come out and then another adjuster come out. did anyone from allstate ever call you and walk through the specifics of why something may be covered by your policy or not covered your policy? or was it just an adjuster coming out and communicating you? no. no one called me to walk me through the details, the policy and how they that would be applied. i was called mostly regarding schedule matters and the adjusters. so even after the multiple estimates as they gave you lower estimates you had received, no one called to tell you line by line why something may or may not have been covered. that is correct. and mr. schroeder. i'll ask you first, when you submitted your estimate, when

you had discussions, did anyone go you line by line? why something might not be worth what you estimated or might not be covered by the policy? um, are you are you asking what? i, when i submit an estimate to reviewers, do they go through they if there's something they disagree with, you know, they would say to remove it. there's typically not an explanation given for why and when there is more than not. it's not what i would say legitimate, not according to the policy. it's, you know, that hail damage isn't hail damage. take it off or that is wear and tear and not damage. take it off. those are the answers i would get. but no, they wouldn't go through my entire estimate line by line with me, you know, and ms.

mcgough, i'm going to come back to you for a moment when you didn't receive right away the money you needed to repair the home were you forced to come out of pocket to repair the house? we have done relatively minor repairs so far simply because we do not have any insight into the budget that we might have at hand. only the most crucial repairs. and for example, putting a tarp up on the roof to further damage or has been done so far and you had to pay for that out of your own money, money that was probably taxed your income. yes, that's correct. and of course, engaging with external experts such as the engineer was also out of pocket. would that have been helpful to be to deduct from your taxes the money you had to lay out to recover for your roof with storm damage? i have not deducted those expenses from my said this would

not have been helpful would have been helpful up a likely yes. you have been exploring with with colleagues you know and a approach to trying to money that people are having to use from their own pocket. they get money from their jobs and then they have to outlay it to stop rain coming into their home. and then they still have to pay taxes on that money. would that have been helpful to you and your family? absolutely. that would have been helpful. and and i don't want to go over time, but mr. quinn, i would like to follow up with you. i know that you've been so on this, and i know a lot of your energy and time and talent has been focused on this issue. what do you believe? it would be helpful and. i know many states are set up and structured different ways. right. one agency may have statutory authority to investigate these matters where another agency would. and so if that one isn't moving fast enough or this one wants to complement it, sometimes that's not available and it looks different in different states. do you think it would be helpful

have a cross section from different agencies being able to within one state task force or even a task force where that where the agents or the are specially trained in this area. yes, ma'am. i believe that would be very helpful. thank you, chair. mr. milligan, can i just come back to you for a second? can i just ask you, did you think that allstate might retaliate against you for your testimony here today? two that ever crossed your mind? yes. yes, sir. and why? why did you think that might happen. well, i mean, got a phone call from pilot management indicating that they aware of it and then. got word from people. the office that i was going to be on a cut off list, which is not happening, probably six years. okay so wait a minute. i just want to make sure that i got this right. i want to be sure everybody in

the room understands it. you're telling me that after you agreed to testify today, you got word that you were on a blacklist, essentially from, allstate, and that you were going to be penalized in some way. i've been told, yes, i've been told that i'm going to be worked out of the the storm in georgia, which 100%. i mean, it's cut in my office is eliminate me guarantee. so retaliating against you. sounds like they've already set in motion. yes. you're telling me. that's what you've heard. because you testified as to what happened yet. because i was going to testify. yes, sir. yeah, even before. even before you got here today were doing this. i mean, that's just that really an unbelievable. absolutely unbelievable. why do you think they why would they do that? because they don't want the truth to be known. i mean, what are they so afraid of in your testimony? i honestly couldn't tell you. i thought that by telling truth, i wouldn't have any problem. i swear to goodness, i had no idea that the i work for would

hold a grudge about speaking the truth. and i just want to underline what you said and you to mr. schroeder, because i want to be. sure. people get it. what you've testified to is, not only did allstate not do right by ms. mcgill, not only did they tell both of you to alter your evaluation they told you to alter your findings, to push down the estimate lower and lower and lower. but you both have testified today that you saw this happen over and over and over, that you were told you said, mr. miller, and you've been told multiple times alter factual findings to delete information, to to lower your your estimate that that's happened repeatedly. it's a pattern. yes, sir. and you said the same thing, mr. schroeder. it's a pattern over and over. yeah, it's not just in this one deployment, not just just little thing, not one area, but this is this happened over and over again for years. i've seen this this trend for years. i mean, that's really that's extraordinary. i have to say. and i want to say thank you to i want to say thank you to all the witnesses. i want to say thank you to the

two of you in particular, because really risked a lot by being here today. and i'm sorry, mr. milliken, that they're retaliated, retaliating against you. mr. schroeder, i know that they retaliated against you by yanking the case right out from under you when you were working with miss mcgill to try to get a fair award for her under the policy. that's just outrageous. it may be illegal. it's not. it should be. and i just want to tell you, we're going to do everything we can to make that you are right by and that people like ms. mcgill across this country are done right by. and that brings me to you, mr. rotella. i want to give you the chance just to say a little bit more about your story. we've been talking about allstate, but you were a policyholder of state farm. i think we've got a picture of your house as well. let's let's take a look here just so people get a sense of it. this is this is your home after hurricane helene, is that right? that's correct. that's lot of damage right there. now, you say that you had a small child at this time. two years old. yes. and your wife was pregnant with our second. yes. wow.

and this was taken back in right after the hurricane back in september, about october. to myself, right after the storm. yes. so and did you say allstate now fixed it all up and it's all good. the state farm. not a state farm, sir. the the home sits untouched. current condition is is inhabitable. so they've done nothing in those. you said the number of days, 200 and 228 days of our home being uninhabitable. excuse me, 228 days. and you have your wife has since had your second child, so. correct. two and a half months ago. yes. so you got. okay. so got a two and a half month old. you got a you've got a two year old. nobody gets any sleep in your house. i suspect. let's keep this keeps us up more at night than they do. i bet that's true. and you are you are coming out of pocket to pay for your own housing because you can't live here. is that right? we've received drips of reimbursement, but we've had to fight tooth and nail for every one of those.

so, you know, i mean, just tell what it's like to go through this with this with this company. i mean, how long you've had your your policy for? a little while, i imagine. mean, it is good you didn't get the day before the storm we've been state farm customers probably for the better part of a decade. wow. and so you pay your premiums like everybody, right. and yet they won't work with you. they won't give you they won't give you any help. your home still hasn't been touched. you've got a you've got a little kid. you've got a little baby. they're not doing anything for you. you decided ultimately that you needed to stand up for yourself and actually try to fight state farm on this. is that to say? that's correct. what would have happened if if you hadn't have done that? you know, do you think what was the strategy? if you hadn't, you still haven't gotten the appropriate award damage award. so what would have happened, though, if you hadn't have stood up and started to demand your rights? i feel that we were perceived as an easy mark that. we needed to be in our home quickly and, so we were going to take this on ourselves. right now we simply have not

received any funds that would allow us to fix our home. so if we had to come out of pocket, it changes everything about our life. where we live. if our kids could go to school, everything, and it's just it's just extraordinary. you should never have had to go through that. mr. retail, i want to offer my sympathies, my apologies to you, to your wife, to your your little ones. that's absolutely outrageous. and the of behavior we've heard testify to here today. it sounds like to me you're a victim of one of these massive insurance companies who takes your money. they're happy to take your money. but when this happened to you, they won't give you anything. it's delay, delay, delay. mr. quinn, let me just ask you, you've you've heard this testimony today. you're very familiar with it. you hear it all the time. can i just ask you, you've heard testimony about allstate and about, frankly, fraud that goes on there in view and your professional judgment is that kind of fraud limited to allstate? no, sir, it is not is pretty much industrywide. tell us more about that. i mean, it's industry because.

because why? tell us tell what the industry looks like, how it runs. you know, we we believe this goes back to the nineties with what's called the mckenzie, a consulting firm sort of trained insurance companies to use their department as a profit center. and they actually trained their staff to come in and short people on claims they did it, specifically starting out with allstate and then they took it on road for almost every other insurance company is now basically industry standard. i will say there's nothing you're hearing that's unique. the people that are speaking are unique because they had the courage to do it. but i hear these stories, every single day and they are the exact same stories over and over and over and working class families getting taken advantage of by insurance companies without any ability to fight back. so what you're telling us is these big insurance companies went to a consulting firm, mckinsey, and ask them to design a program to help rip off

policyholders. that correct, sir. and that has that been successful? i mean, has their program successful in ripping off policyholders? it's been incredibly successful. sorry. it is actually part of the systemic fraud that's occurring every day now, that's extraordinary. senator kim, thank you, chair mr. milliken. mr. schroeder, i wanted to just kind of zoom out a little bit. you know, we talked major disasters, but mr. milliken, you were talking about just in general, there's a lot more higher volume in your work and you in particular said that that has increased use of of people that are just kind of relying photographs, right? is that correct, in terms of just, you know, trying to get out there, people that might not have the skill set that you and mr. schroeder have, but they're out there telling us, you know, photographs. can you tell us a little bit more about that? yes, sir. so when i first started

photographs, you never adjusted an estimate by photographs. you went out and put eyes on. now it's the the whole process is set up on photographs. so the reviewers are reviewing pictures that i took at my inspection where i identified damage to a roof. and this reviewer who's never been to this house tells me that that's not him. so i go back out to the house, i take more pictures with a phone and a camera. i submit these pictures and reviewer tells me this is not hell. i'm 100% certain this is hell, but yet this is still the process. and this isn't just one time, this is multiple times. and the same thing goes with mislabeling material. if i go out and identify a certain material pre-engineered flooring versus finished in place flooring and they tell me that it's not what i say it is. well, i mean, i know that's what it is, is 100% factual. and they're making me something

that's not factual and submit this to the homeowner. so, yes, that that happens on a regular basis. and what this reliance on photographs to try to determine, you know, what the level damage is. do you think that that is sort of predispose? is that something that seems to be when you are relying upon photographs, does that seem to be something where you're more likely to underestimate damage or overestimate the damage? 100% underestimate damage. i think the whole process is designed to mis damage. you know, mr. chair, you know, i just kind of raises because it's just about, you know, the major you know, we're certainly catching that because we are we're seeing and hearing some incredibly powerful stories. but you know, i think this committee should be thinking through the systemically, like certain types of steps, like what you're saying that seem to just always kind of tip the balance toward away from the consumers away, from the policyholders and, kind of always geared towards, you know,

underestimating. and i think that that's something that, you know, becomes much more clear to me when i hear from you on this front. you know, mr. quinn, i want to turn to you because, you know the devil's advocate. the argument on the other side is saying, hey, look, we have very low rates of complete, you know, some percentage percent or whatnot. i, i just wanted to just hear from you. what is your response to that type of argument in terms of of saying, like, you know, satisfaction high, you know, these problems are, outliers rather than systemic, i assure you, senator, satisfaction is not high. we hear the complaints regularly. what we understand is most consumers, when they complain they're dealing with their insurance companies. so they'll complain to the insurer and. we believe those statistics get buried. you know, most people don't understand how to complain to their insurance department, how to complain to the national association of commissioners. they they don't get it. they don't understand how to do that. so, you know, whatever the companies are claiming are their complaints are not

representative of the amount of extreme dissatisfaction amongst our policyholders. ms. miguel. mr. fertel, you know, when you were going through that difficult process, you know, probably for the first time where you had to kind of engage with claims of that magnitude, is it right that you have a hard time, the time, all the different tools at your disposal, the process that you need to go through? am i right? kind of assuming that, you know, you're going through a lot of trauma as well, just emotionally and trying to figure out how to file an complaint or this or that might be more opaque to the average person. is that right? ms. miguel i would say that is correct it is not very user friendly. it's not very intuitive, because you had me were talking about how you have to go to, you know, you had to bring in an outside adjuster, right? that was probably not something that you knew. you could do right away. is that correct? that's correct. it took us months to learn enough about the environment with which we working in about the situation and how it works to even recognize that that was

an option for us mr. fertel, could you imagine, you know, policyholder that are going through this are frustrated but they might not know that there are ways to file official complaints or, you know, take other actions to be able to raise some of their concerns or see if they're outside entities that might be able to help take another look. yeah. yeah. i'm not sure exactly what a complaint would have done in this scenario. you know, mr. quinn, i just want to go back to something i asked you at the end of last round, you were talking about the states versus the federal approach. and, you know, certainly i'm more familiar with this in terms of new jersey. but, you know, i think part of what i'm hearing as well from you as you're hearing this from a lot of people is yes, you know states are often not meeting the bar, but am i also correct? part of the problem is, is that every state probably does this differently. you know has different levels of of engagement. you know some states maybe do

better than others, but, you know, without that sense of level field, it's very difficult for the american people and the policyholders to be able to have a chance of fairness. is that an accurate way to, be able to describe it? that is correct. every state has their own procedure and it's not necessarily consistency between one state in the next. mr. milliken. mr. schroeder. you know. mr. quinn was saying that he felt that this was an across the industry. you know, we've certainly talked about certain insurance companies here. but is that your understanding as well from your experi and did you feel like there were some that that that were biting very differently, very much focused on on consumer? or do you feel like this is a problem that you see across the industry, no matter which insurance company that you are working with? mr. schroeder? i would say i work for many different companies. i kind of spread myself out that way for the purpose of getting

different exposure and experience and i do see this as a, like a systematic general. consensus, a way, a standard for practice amongst all insurance companies. some, though, are better than others. and, you know, there's a couple of standouts that i would say are really fair and for the most part, all the rest are in the same group of consistently denying, unfairly claims are where there's oh damage. mr. millican, anything to add here? no, sir. i've exclusively for allstate for the most part, so i only can speak to that. okay thank you. well, look, i just you know, i just want to say, first of all, what you were saying, both mr. schroeder, mr. millican, about the risks that you all or you are taking when it comes to your career, your work.

i just want you to know that's incredibly powerful to hear any it just lends added gravity to your testimony, to your answers today. and i want you to know, you know, this is not some just check the box thing that the chairman and i are engaged on. you know, we want to make sure that we are invested in the follow up to make sure that it's worth the risk that you took and to, you know, miss miguel. mr. quinn, mr. vertical. you know, just the just hearing about the impact this has had on you, your family, your kids. i just, you know, as a father, a seven year old and nine year old, and in hearing from families across new jersey that years later still, you know, they were saying that i mean, you you may very well agree, but people i talked to in new jersey, they were saying like the storm was in some ways the easier part. you know, that that was you know, they thought that was going to be the worst of it. they didn't expect all the you know and i'll exclude words that people use. but all the other stuff that

comes later, they didn't that that would be so -- difficult. and i just think that that's something i think the american people really to understand like is it that, you know, your time of greatest need not only are you not able to rely upon those that are supposed to help you, but they're actually making things worse. and i just think that that's something that just eats away. i mean, it just hurts so much to your stories. and i'm sorry for what you all gone through and the fact that you're sharing it. it's for the betterment. and hopefully we can save save this to help fix and make it easier for other families in the future to be able to go through this. i want to thank all of the witnesses for here today on this panel. thank you. thank you for your testimony. thank you for being willing to. share with us your stories, expertise, your knowledge of this industry. i want to say again, sorry for what you've had to go through, particularly you, miss miguel. you, mr. fertel. and we'll continue to do everything we on this committee to g