The Brother-in-Law and the Referral Fee
Alex is a Delaware-licensed staff adjuster. He is assigned a $7,200 water-damage claim. The insured is Alex's brother-in-law. Alex tells his manager about the relationship. The manager says, 'It's a small claim; just handle it-you know the house and it will be faster.' Alex's friend owns a restoration company. The friend says, 'If you send me jobs, I'll pay you $500 per referral.' Alex recommends the friend's company to the insured and says, 'Use him; he's fast and knows how to write estimates.' The insured asks whether he can use his own contractor. Alex replies that the friend is 'preferred.' Alex is also on a performance improvement plan for claim-cycle time.
1. Identify the ethical and claims-handling problems in Alex's conduct.
Read the worked answer
There are three overlapping problems. First, Alex has a close family relationship with the insured, which creates a conflict of interest. Disclosure to the manager is necessary, but the manager's instruction to proceed does not eliminate the conflict. A small claim can still be scrutinized if the insured is treated more favorably, or more harshly, because of the relationship.
Second, the $500-per-referral offer is a financial conflict and may constitute an illegal inducement or rebate. Accepting it, or steering claims in exchange for it, is unethical and can violate claims-practice and insurance-fraud rules. Third, Alex steered the insured to a particular restoration company and called it 'preferred' when the insured asked about using his own contractor. Insureds generally have the right to choose their contractor; the adjuster should not pressure or steer them for the adjuster's benefit.
2. What should Alex have done when assigned the claim, and what should he do now?
Read the worked answer
When assigned, Alex should have disclosed the relationship in writing and requested reassignment to another licensed adjuster. If the manager refused, Alex should have escalated the conflict to compliance or a higher manager. He should never have accepted or discussed the referral-fee arrangement in connection with a claim.
Now, Alex should immediately stop handling the claim, report the referral-fee offer to compliance, and ask for reassignment. He should not recommend his friend's company or characterize it as preferred. If the insured already selected the friend's company, the new adjuster should confirm the selection was the insured's independent choice and document it. Alex should preserve all texts or emails about the referral offer and not delete anything.
3. How should the carrier document and resolve the referral-fee issue?
Read the worked answer
The carrier should open a compliance or ethics review separate from the claim file. It should document the referral offer, Alex's response, the insured's contractor selection, and the manager's instruction. The claim file should show that the insured was told he may use a contractor of his choice and that no carrier approval of a particular vendor is required.
The carrier should determine whether the friend's company has any vendor relationship with the carrier and whether any other claims were steered. It should prohibit any referral payment and consider discipline or retraining for Alex and the manager. If the conduct implicates licensing or unfair claim practices, the carrier should consult counsel about reporting obligations. The claim itself should be reassigned and re-evaluated to ensure the settlement was not affected by the conflict.