It's close. I'd bet legally speaking, contractor commit way more fraud. In Minnesota alone, how many contractors get paid for Drip edge on insurance claims but don't actually replace it? That's just one item. Technically it's fraud every time that happens.
Jon, I admit that my perspective is skewed. No one ever calls me to say "Hey Badger, we got this easy claim where everyone is getting along and we want to hire you anyway." I just see the really bad stuff. And I see it every single day. So from my perspective contractor fraud is much worse than "insurer fraud". I can honestly tell you that in 30 years of representing insurance companies I have never seen an altered or intentionally misstated report. Has it happened? Yes. (Superstorm Sandy). But I have never seen it in one of my matters. But I do see fabricated invoices from contractors weekly.
@@stevenbadger398 never seen a report where adjustor intentionally refuses to pay for ridge cap and starter? Even when it it existed on the old roof? Cause I deal with that every day.
@@joncantrall6977 Yo, Jon! Nice to see you here! I completely agree, it's maybe only half the adjusters I deal with that acknowledge that waste =! ridge and starter.
xactimate says they don’t bake in the over head and profit into the line items for the roofing contractor. Per xactimate pricing trainer advise what they do bake in is for the subcontractor that is installing the shingles. So I am hearing conflicting stories help
Great interview. I just want to interject one thing. When you were discussing whether underpayment of claims is fraud, Badger claims that it's not fraud because the adjusters don't intentionally miss items. However, insurance companies have set up guidelines that intentionally exclude items. So the company has created a system that always misses items and puts the burden on the contractor to negotiate for them. That seems pretty fraudulent to me.
I just had Allstate pay me for less drip edge which is odd because if you have the linear feet how do you end up paying less? I also got paid to replace gutter apron but I did not get detach and reset of the gutters. This is totally intentional.
Insights: 00:00 Intro 00:44 What kind of lawyer are you? 02:00 Badger vs. Houghtaling 03:40 Do you get hate from contractors? 04:22 Interview with John Houghtaling 06:45 Longer response, higher denials 09:30 Why are deductibles controversial? 13:00 Why aren't laws followed? 14:10 Tour of Urban Growler (Part 1) 17:40 Proof of deductible 18:32 Players in storm restoration 20:50 Why does roof replacement depend on adjusters? 21:40 Appraisals 27:05 Tour of Urban Growler (Part 2) 30:04 Numbers don't lie 33:33 Can deductibles be waived? 42:06 Adjusters and underpaying claims isn't fraud? 49:49 Do we need Xactimate? 54:30 Contractors and overhead 58:50 Why aren't insurance companies following Chubb? 59:55 Why are clients hurting? 1:00:53 What kind of fraud is still happening? 1:02:25 Tour of Urban Growler (Part 3) 1:04:15 Federal Bank Fraud 1:06:20 Florida 76 Bill 1:07:33 Contractors & UPPA LAws 1:08:40 Being a contractor AND public adjuster 1:09:40 Bad advice given to contractors 1:12:20 What players do we need more/less of? 1:14:37 What technology is missing in the industry? 1:16:40 Advice to the homeowner
Timely & Fairly?? When does that happen? I’ve never had a claim that was properly paid up front. Always have to FIGHT for the homeowner to get proper coverage.
Your examples of contractor’s fraud are nice anecdotes. However, they are nothing compared to the effectively 100% of initial insurance scopes that are INTENTIONALLY under scoped and under paid.
Eag, if you truly believe that "effectively 100% of initial insurance scopes are INTENTIONALLY under scoped and under paid", then there is no reason to debate the issue with you. That would be the equivalent of me saying that "all roofing contractor repair estimates are fraudulent". I obviously dont believe that.
@@stevenbadger398 It is not equivalent though. I can show you every one of “my” past claims with any insurance company and show where each one is missing the same scope items that exist on every roof. Some of these are code items, and some are just part of every roofing system. Starter and ridge cap come to mind. At what point does it become a bad faith underpayment after an adjuster has herd the same argument with the same documentation for the same line items they have missed? When they bring up their employer’s “adjusting guidelines” as the reason they are not including those items are they knowingly violating the oath of their license?
@@stevenbadger398 With all due respect, how often have you seen an adjuster write for material waste disposal without first having it supplemented? It's not a mystery they always should. But I have never seen them do so.
@@stevenbadger398 I believe you’re 100% wrong here. I also believe that it seems your simply using these platforms as a way to gather more information to help gather info to litigate for the carriers with. Every single claim is intentionally underpaid by insurance companies. 100% of them. It’s not a free market. It’s a desk adjusters job to tip toe around legally to argue that these intentionally underpaid items aren’t owed and confuse the policy holder to drive a wedge between the them and their selected contractor. I get you’re good at what you do. I also feel like what you do is essentially the same as what Capone kept attorneys on retainer for… I get it, you can come back like you did above with the mortally reprehensible answer “if you believe this then there’s no debating you” but that is a cop out. No one is debating here. 100% of claims are underpaid upon initial assessment.
Why is it wrong to work “a mile” a way from the storm and knocking doors? The adjuster determines if it gets approved. There’s either damage or their isn’t. Don’t cover wind and hail if you don’t want contractors to make homeowners aware they might have damage.
It's wild to hear Farmers lumped with the likes of State Farm and Allstate. Farmers in my state is one of the best carriers we can run into. The only complaint I have it that they are slow, but almost always pay fairly and don't play games.
The most glaring conflict of interest on planet earth is an insurance company who is required by law to show up to a loss with a check book and a pen... But is given full latitude to design the scope and write the estimate. For clarification, Xactimate line items have "subcontractor" o&p built in. Subcontractor= a guy working from home with a truck and a ladder.
Did someone already ask Steve about RFG vs DMO? I would be interested in hearing his point of view. I had a insurance adjuster tell me the following: "I researched your request to change the trade for removal to RFG and we do not cover those costs due to the removal not being skilled labor. RFG for the removal is not normal or customary." My understanding is DMO is for a demolition contractor. As a roofing contractor I cannot hire a demo contractor to demo the roof per the roofing permit I pull because I am not acting as a general contractor, thus I am not getting the GC O&P which I understand. But isn't demolition of a roof by a roofing contractor skilled labor and normal and customary? Ask anyone who has torn off a 3 story roof. Should not the removal trade be changed to RFG to reflect this per line item?
That is 100% BS! Insurance companies want to avoid paying for claims. And they sure as hell have no interest whatsoever in being fair unless their definition of fair means screw the insured every way possible and get away with it.
I disagree that PAs being contractors is a conflict of interest. The best person to be in charge of the entire claim is an honest PA. They understand the policy and the work it takes to complete the job. And as a contractor he has the relationship with his people to make sure work is completed within the guidelines of the policy as well as justify work to the carrier as it relates to the policy. I don't see how a public adjuster being a contractor on a job is any more of a conflict of interest than a insurer recommending a contractor that will do things they way they want and wave the deductible (I know Steve said it's not waving the deductible, it's choosing not to enforce it. But if we are being honest, it's the same thing.) It's like the insurer sets the guidelines of the contract without the insured getting a say, defines what damage is without the insured getting a say, and picks a contractor that will make sure their way is enforced... and tempting the broke insured with it by waving the deductible... that's the conflict of interest, and manipulation if you ask me. And no, the insured doesn't have the option to not get insurance because they are forced to by the banks.
To add to my prior. A lot of INS companies in our area have paid fair. But there a handful. Won’t name names. But a handful that are aggravating to deal with.
@47:15 Steve, you have got to be obfuscating or out of your lively mind. Claims are under shot on initial scopes by 30-40% by the base level, saying you see 30-40% over billing by public adjusters and contractors to nullify the argument is ludicrous. The small percentage of claims that get to a PA, and have a contracted attorney is infinitesimally small compared to the broader basket of claims that start so low. The insurance industry is relying on an unorganized pool of contractors and uneducated policy holders just taking less than what is a fair market rate for their damages because the process is difficult for most. Mr Badger, you have dodged the biggest question in the interview. That is NOT that grey area. Your bias is understandable but does but avoid recognizing the biggest problem the actual insureds face. The professionals have it easy, we will always adapt, the insurers. contractors, engineers, pas and attorneys. The insureds typically get screwed if they dont have good representation. Just admit it.
Yes and to say the 10/10 is baked in. Yes for a sub crew in a truck that does not sell, market or have physical office. If we are a roofing contractor and have office, employees, marketing, sell the job. Have repair service and a few subs for our main roofs 10/10 is necessary. Just bc we are not labeled a GC does not mean the 10/10 gets kept by INS company. They are a “good steward” for pay claims low? If it was as easy as Steve said that would be different too. It’s not. Talk to an adjuster, they all have different reasons they don’t pay it. Not complicated enough, not complex enough. If there are 3 trades, they are not that hard to coordinate. If there are 3 trades and the company is not doing them all, again No o and p added? A lot of different answers and reasons given to keep from paying o and p. Dimitri you need a 2nd interview with Steve with a few more questions I no doubt you will get from all the comments to come.
Das, I certainly didnt tend to obfuscate anything, but I do admit I might be out of my mind! Otherwise, I will not admit that "insureds typically get screwed" if they arent represented. The large majority of claims get quickly and amicably resolved with local contractors willing to work cooperatively in coming up with a fair price to get the damage repaired. The process usually works. But the process fails when third-parties get involved who put their profits above the interests of the insured. I have seen countless examples of insureds not getting their damage repaired for years because a contractor wrote a greatly inflated estimate and tried to get rich on the claim.
Matt, you are confusing "roofing contractor overhead and profit" with "general contractor overhead and profit". Of course a roofing contractor is entitled to overhead and profit. My understanding is that the overhead and profit included in Xactimate pricing is consistent with general industry overhead and profit incurred by roofing contractors. And I have no problem finding roofing contractors who are willing to put on roofs for Xactimate pricing. "General contractor overhead and profit" -- the 10+10 we always fight about - is an entirely different concept. Those two line items only apply when the involvement of a general contractor is reasonably necessary and, for purposes of RCV payments, when the cost of a general contractor is actually incurred. Those two line items have nothing to do with the roofing contractor's overhead and profit.
No hypothetical!! We had 2 Travelers homeowners right next door to each other! Same age original roofs no trees! One approved for replacement the neighbor DENIED! Absolutely opinionated and unfair!
Well, assuming all variables equal (type of shingles, roof age, hail hit both houses, etc.), under those facts someone either got a roof paid for that they shouldnt have or had their claim wrongly denied. Be sure to consider both options before running down to courthouse. I see a lot of roofs bought that arguably dont have damage.
“This a consumer advocate bill”. Spoken like a true attorney. Get ride of the percentage deductibles. Insurance companies know a lot of people will say no to filling a claim if they have to pay the deductible no matter how severe the property damage is. I hate helping with deductibles, it’s profit directly out the door but the alternative is a lot less business.
Well, if you are waiving deductibles I trust you are letting the insurance company know that the actual amount incurred by the insured is net of the deductible not being paid. If you dont advise the insurance company of that fact, then both you and the insured are committing insurance fraud by lying about the amount actually incurred in requesting an RCV holdback payment. As to people foregoing claims to avoid paying their deductible, that is their choice. They got a lower premium by selecting a higher deductible. If they choose to not replace their damaged roof, so be it.
So if the Insurance carriers have an agreement with the insured as to deductible, why don't they simply collect it and why put the burden on the contractor? Not saying it's difficult to collect, but who is in agreement and who should collect it?
Lateef, let's all be clear as to the meaning of a "deductible". A deductible is the amount an insured has agreed to pay on any claim before the insurance company's payment obligation kicks in. So there is really not anything for the insurance company to "collect". A deductible is simply the insured's initial obligation to pay for the cost of damage before the insurance company's payment obligation begins. Since the contract to repair damage is between the insured and the contractor, the obligation to pay the contractor is on the insured. The insured pays the first part with their deductible amount. The insured then pays the remaining with insurance proceeds. Requiring an insurance company to "collect" a deductible would then require the insurance company to turn around and give that money to the contractor. That doesnt make any sense.
@@stevenbadger398 Health care insurance for example at times simply sends you a bill for the deductible or copay, and they pay the hospital. In other cases they don't but it just seems like we are making an industry of something that could just be optimized to work simpler for all.
@@stevenbadger398 Doesn't the insurance companies obligation to pay kick in the moment that damage from a covered peril occurs? Is ACV not owed whether a deductible is paid or not?
Eag, O&P is baked into the line items for roofing contractors. Just like any other specialty contractor. The white papers you refer to make that clear. You may not like the O&P that is baked in, but its based on industry pricing overall.
@@stevenbadger398 Overhead & Profit As described within Xactware's Overhead and Profit whitepaper" the retail labor rate (or more specifically the labor overhead portion of the retail labor rate) within Xactware's published cost information is intended to account for G&A expenses and markup charged by a typical sub-contractor, or the non-wage related expenses incurred by a general contractor associated with having their own employees perform the work. In general, this means that the unit cost in Xactware's published pricing should be inclusive of sub-contractor overhead and profit, and that the O&P percentage added to the estimate is intended for use by a general contractor.”
@@stevenbadger398 “Years ago, the residential roofing industry was comprised primarily of traditional sub-contractors; those who had one or more of their own crews, with their own employees and actually performed the installation of shingles. Market expansion has today brought in many general contractors who specialize in a few critical trades like roofing, and some general contractors who specialize only in roofing. The latter group is considered a GC only as they do not perform the work in-house but rather sub-contract (with the traditional sub). They have also been described as roofing sales organizations.”
It's not semantics at all. There is a huge distinction. And if a contractor has to eat deductibles "to compete", he oughta really reconsider his business plan. Because a business plan that includes committing insurance fraud in every job is doomed to failure.
I have a big problem with your use of outside bids for a number of reasons. First and foremost, when you are having another company bid to replace a roof (for simplicity’s sake), what scope of work are they using? Are you giving them the adjuster’s scope, are you giving them the one the other contractor has submitted, are they coming up with their own, or are you telling them “how much to replace a 40 sq 1 story 4 pitch?” My main objection with this is that, for instance, flashing may not meet code and manufacturer specifications for reuse on a roof replacement. This flashing work (and any associated work) may not be included in the other companies scope of work. I’m saying that their scope may not meet code, minimum general building standards, or manufacturer specifications in many ways. Further and more crucially, is the insurance company only obligated to pay the least expensive quote? Does the insured have a choice in the contractor the insurance company pays for?
When we get bids, if there is no dispute as to the scope of damage, we will use the same scope as the contractor. We tell the roofing contractors we engage to give us the current competitive bid price to put on the roof compliant with all code and manufacturer requirements. That's it. Just like they would do for a "retail job". As to what quote is selected, that is always a judgment call. But what we find is that once we get real bids, the contractor actually doing the work realizes we have a legitimate basis to argue that the true cost is lower and not paying his estimate. He then lowers his price to a number generally consistent with the bids we obtained and the job gets done without a year of litigation. In the end, that is good for the homeowner.
Or hear me out here, these contractors KNOW the only benefit they get out of this time wasting exercise is a good relationship with a carrier, for whatever that’s worth. AND the contractors are only caving to your price because you present the case legally in a manner that’s unfortunately skewed against them to start because of non-competitive bids. There’s no way this doesn’t happen.
@@stevenbadger398 Most retail jobs in Texas are not code-compliant is the issue. And if you are simply using the contractor’s scope, are they using xactimate for their bid?
Great interview Dmitry and Steve. I don’t agree with everything you said Steve, but do respect the positions youve taken on behalf of your clients. However, there are as many equal issues that we contractors face as a result of your clients fraud/abuse!
Steve, What about a claim department supervisor ignoring letters sent from the city stating something can not be repaired and tell the homeowner they don’t need to pull a permit. Bad training or bad faith?
Everlast, I cant respond to specific situations. I expect there is another side to the story. But generally speaking, if a building official has a code-based reason why a roof must be replaced rather than repaired and the policy provides coverage for that increased cost of construction, then the insurer should cover that claim. However, there are lots of variables that go into that analysis.
I think what contractors call insurance companies committing “fraud” is usually poor training and/or company policy that the field staff cannot override…
I think it’s the contractors fault for waving deductibles but also the homeowner. As you said earlier. If the homeowner is threatening to go to another contractor he could be lying. Maybe no other company said that and maybe he didn’t even talk to another contractor and I’m the first one but the homeowner can use that to force me or loose the job. So a law plus a fine will take away a negotiating tool the homeowner has.
This guy is a total shill. The Insurance Industry uses mathematical equations to pay some claims at certain times and then delay and deny at certain times. His argument is ridiculous because he is basically saying some roofers are more unethical than we are. Let's be honest ~ it's only about $....
Randy, I'll ignore the insult and say once again -- no insurance company I work with intentionally delays and denies covered claims. I have never seen that with any of my clients. They do not like to get sued. They dont like disputed claims. There is no upside to an "intentional delay and deny" strategy. Do insurance companies at times mistakenly deny or delay claims? Of course. And when they do, the insured has remedies. As to unethical roofers, I have never said all roofing contractors are unethical. I work daily with dozens of fair and reputable contractors. But I do see a lot of really bad conduct in the roofing industry.
@@stevenbadger398 Are you denying that sometimes your Insurance Carrier uses calculations that make "buying" a roof actually beneficial at times.....and at other times cost prohibitive due to Reinsurance and Premium Rates in the future?
@@randyjames693 Yes, I am denying that. My clients do not decide whether to buy roofs based on reinsurance or premium rate issues. They make decisions based on whether the roofs are damaged by a covered peril and require replacement.
I'm so glad I took the time to watch this. I've been in this a long time now. I have never found anyone to work for that did things the right way. I mean not one company does things in a way I thought was ethical and right. Finally getting out on my own and it's working out very well. I'm so glad I got out of that storm chasing game and became literally the only legitimate roofer in my market. I am actually a roofer by trade as well and I am certainly the only roofing company around here that can say that. You won't find one scratch on any of their trucks, not one of them has a set of dirty roofing shoes/work boots, and not one of them has a set of tool bags with any miles on them. I want to see more installers step up and take the industry back from all of these paper contractors sucking everyone dry and playing virtually no meaningful role except a "middle man".
@wayneguy6043 because insurance roofers have a lot more costs incurred, as well as waiting sometimes months and months on getting paid. What a good insurance roofer does goes way way beyond what costs chuck in a truck has to deal with.
Dimitry is like the Joe Rogan on Roofing discussions, this is an amazing review and debate. This brings a lot of knowledge and it's all a win win for the consumer. I see Dimitry get bigger and bigger this channel deserves a million subs.
@@stevenbadger398 absolutely & you did great answering everything. Also props to you for forgiveness on some of those contractors who admitted to their guilt and mistakes. It's good to have more options available for the consumers there is plenty of room for everyone. It's good to see contractors improve & not make the same mistake.
Yep, I wouldnt have said that two years ago. But I would guess that roughly 40% of the disputed claims in my office right now involve appraisal rather than litigation. That's a huge increase. Contractors drive matters to appraisal. PA's drive matters to appraisal. And now some policyholder attorneys are dumping all their matters in appraisal. How they can do that and still charge their clients a 33%-40% contingency fee raises an interesting ethical issue in my opinion.
@@stevenbadger398 I do agree with the notion that it may be unethical for PA’s and attorney’s to dump most of their claims into appraisal. I get that part. Appraisal is, however, a fantastic solution for homeowners (usually via recommendation of their contractor). But what about the two Allstate side appraisers who have told me flat out that Allstate will not let them change the Xactimate removal trade? What about the appraiser Amfam uses in my area who does not accept any umpire other than his father? And both of whom’s scopes always match Amfam’s original exactly, even on multi layer discontinued shingle repairs. What about all the legitimate appraisal awards that have to be brought in front of a judge in order to be enforced? As with every part of the insurance industry, most of the fraud is carried out by the insurer and its’ representatives.
I’d like to see insurance companies require homeowners to show proof they’re paying contractors the deductibles. I’m starting to see homeowners proactively ask to have their deductible waived or at the least say they have an offer from another contractor for that as leverage.
The issue begins and ends right here, 32:32, the insurance hasn't changed, there are now people that are willing to call them out. He clearly says, "that's the process".
Matt, great idea! Which is why we put it in the Texas legislation. Insurance companies can require reasonable proof of deductible payment before making an RCV holdback payment. If an insurance company is not asking for reasonable proof, tell me who they are and I will call them and tell them to do it.
Dimitry, We aren’t missing a technology. The auto industry went thru what we are going thru now in 2008. Mergers and accusations will create the industry you are envisioning.
“Trolling neighborhoods to create problems.” What an idiotic statement. If a roof has damage, the homeowner is entitled to get it fixed. We pay thousands of dollars every year for that sole reason. Sounds like to me you’re trolling homeowners to not file claims so insurance companies don’t have to pay claims. But it’s pretty obvious who’s paying your paycheck……
This was an AMAZING interview. The main issue is all the people injecting themselves into the process. Have seen this first hand over the past 15 years. The market was actually better 15 years ago. I agree 100% with selling the jobs as retail jobs. This has been our business model for years and it’s working great.
Increasing deductibles are the result of people wanting lower premiums. You can still get a $500 deductible, but it will just cost more. And I bet you know what I believe to be the primary driver of increasing insurance premiums in all states where hail and hurricanes are common. Read about what is happening in Florida right now.
20:14 "create claims..." are you saying these are NOT valid claims and that the inspectors etc are fraudulently making cases? If they find damaged homes "on the fringes" doesn't the insurance still have the responsibility to pay the claim? Or are you saying otherwise?
If the house got hit by hail and there is damage, that is a valid claim. But we all know that certain contractors are trolling for projects in areas near hail events where it actually didnt hail. That's what I meant by on the fringes". The contractor then gets a $39 hail report that shows hail was nearby. They hope that's enough to raise a question as to whether hail actually struck the house. I see that every day.
@@stevenbadger398 Ok, I am down with that. I believe we agree on when a a carrier should pay, but if a contractor tries to get claims on weak "possibilities" then that absolutely should be addressed. I guess I was just trying to say that there are indeed homes that get damage that are in the "fringes" and they equally deserve to be repaired. Thanks Steven, I also like how you so correctly stated that the homeowner is the actual party that should be handling their own claim.
Appraisal is absolutely effective. It can resolve legitimately disputed claims quickly and cheaply. Sadly, though, we see a lot of matters dumped in appraisal when certain PAs and policyholder attorneys know there is not "true damage". These PAs and policyholder attorneys (we all know who they are) dump their matters in appraisal because they know they cant prove their cases in court and its easier to manipulate the appraisal process to get a favorable award. A sad but increasingly common situation.
We don’t delete any comments. Sometimes it can be flagged for language. You can also send it to us and we will publish it on our end! We don’t censor anything! Email for us: dmitry@roofinginsights.com
Mr. Badger, please stop speaking in lawyer language and be real. When you say “adjusters don’t INTENTIONALLY miss line items”, I know what you’re really saying is “Of course adjusters intentionally miss line items, but you can’t prove it was intentional”. I believe in patterns. And there is without a doubt a HUGE pattern of underpaid claims and missed line items.
Absolutely not. No adjuster is trained to intentionally miss line items. No adjuster wants their claims disputed. Are mistakes made? Sure. But I fail to accept that adjusters intentionally fail to include line items. The issue is what line items are properly included. There is room for disagreement there, which is why I support creation of a standardized roof spec that we can all agree includes what is needed to properly replace a roof.
@@stevenbadger398 this is something that insurance companies always fail to understand. Every roof is unique, coming with their own challenges and circumstances. Every roofing company is different. One may charge $425/square as a lump sum estimate and one may break each line item down. And then those line items differ in price for each company that writes estimates that way. What needs to be standardized is the elimination of Xactimate. Are you proposing that we agree on what items are needed to replace a roof or the price for those items? Because you can’t do one and not the other when using Xactimate. Can we agree that if we’re coming to an agreement on the price of each item, then that could be considered price fixing? And I don’t think adjusters are trained to leave line items off of estimates but rather instructed to do so. There’s no way the pattern is a coincidence.
Justin, when we have these disputes it is always my preference to go get some real bids to "test" what the actual price of the roof would be on the open competitive market. I get real local roofers (actual brick and mortar contractors) to give me real bids (not estimates but actual bids as though they were doing the job). If the bids are higher than my client's Xactimate estimate, I will recommend that my client pay more. My client's should pay the competitive fair cost to repair the damage (consistent with the policy coverage provided). Xactimate is a tool to get to that price. It is not the be-all-end-all. When there is a legitimate dispute as to pricing, we can all do more to get to that competitive fair cost.
@@stevenbadger398 - They for sure intentionally miss items on every claim because "it's against internal company guidelines". The insureds didn't sign off on those guidelines. The carriers made them up to save money.
@@stevenbadger398 “But I fail to accept that adjusters intentionally fail to include line items.” Anything else you say is irrelevant after that. We all know you don’t even believe that.
I doubt that. What I expect I would see are the abuses that adjusters take from roofers (and PAs) in trying to inflate claims and get roofs bought that arent damaged. I suspect the truth is that its the few bad actors (yes, on both sides) that make the process difficult.
@@stevenbadger398 then you’d be wrong. You wouldn’t see that. Here’s the problem, you’re speaking from a pulpit of authority when you don’t understand what’s actually happening.
