Licensing Of Property Managers example essay topic

When they talk about appraisal under the terms of a property policy, textbooks, instructional materials and, instructors have, always had a tendency to presume that the parties have resolved all coverage issues before they resort to appraisal. Thats probably the effect of common sense lurking in the subconscious and exerting a powerful influence over what gets written or spoken. An appraisal is an expensive proposition and each party has to bear a share of the cost. Because the appraiser can't consider coverage issues, the thing to do is resolve them before incurring the expense of an appraisal.

That's just common sense. Thats what can breed a false sense of security once the appraisal process starts. Common sense tells the risk manager that the insurer has put the coverage issues to rest, but common sense often has little to do with a business decision. Some of the things adjusters and attorneys who specialize in representing insurance companies have been saying actually suggest that insurers sometimes rely on common sense to get insured to drop their guard. Specifically, they are using appraisals under commercial property forms as a vehicle for gathering information to support a disclaimer. That's not what appraisals are supposed to be about, but it's the way some insurers are using them.

Claims adjusters and attorneys who admit to this practice assert that an appraisal is sometimes the only way to obtain the information they need to support a disclaimer. Fraud is the most prominent reason they give for denying coverage, but their statements indicate clearly that they are using appraisals to gather information even where there is no suspicion of fraud. A claim is in dispute, the adjuster or attorney wants to get the insured to admit to something that would support a disclaimer, and an appraisal is the chosen route to the information. Adjusters and attorneys point to the appraisal provision in commercial property forms to support their position. It specifically allows the insurer to disclaim liability after an appraisal. Insurers inserted that provision as a defense against an insured that demands an appraisal while coverage is still in dispute, but that's not always how insurers use the policy language.

They will sometimes go through an appraisal letting the insured believe that all coverage issues have been put to rest, only to use information garnered from the appraisal process to deny the claim. The appraisers can't consider information that indicates a lack of coverage, they argue, but there's nothing to stop the insurer from using it to avoid paying the claim. Insurers want you to believe that they have an absolute right to behave that way, but that's not crystal clear. An insurer that demands an appraisal could well be tacitly admitting to coverage. A court could find that the demand for appraisal waives the right to dispute coverage, or at least stops a disclaimer after the demand has caused the insured to incur the expense of hiring an appraiser. That's something for the courts to decide, and nobody has been able to cite a case where a court considered that issue.

Until that happens, risk managers who resort to appraisal to resolve valuation disputes will have to watch what they say during the process. It had been written as an act to amend the Real Property Law in relation to the licensing of realty managers and residential realty managers. The bills Justification reads, Residential realty management deserves the high level of professional recognition it commands. Therefore, licensing is essential and would be comprised of both classroom and on-the-job training. The intent is to bring supervisory managers to a certain level of competence and experience. Education would touch upon all aspects of housing: the physical plant (including electrical and thermal installations), administration and the importance of labor union relations.

Modeled after the Halperin Bill of the late 1980's, which had substantial input from N YARM, people were optimistic that Kruger's bill would pass, as he indicated 2001 would be the threshold year. But it wasnt. The bill was referred to Judiciary in January 2001, where it has been, ostensibly, in limbo for the past year. But it did succeed in establishing important criteria for residential property managers by defining educational and testing criteria, as well as honing in on who would be responsible for receiving a license and who could be exempt. The licensing of property managers is similar in concept to that of licensing real estate sales agents and brokers, in that it determines the number of hours required for study, the curriculum, qualifications testing and continuing education standards.

The difference is that the subject matter is germane to the profession of property management, as opposed to existing courses for brokers, which deal with leasing, buying and selling property and only touch upon management within its curriculum. As a result of all the publicity the topic has received over the past few years, however, we are finally seeing more and more positive reactions regarding licensure. In an article published in the January 2002 issue of Habitat Magazine, a publication for co-op and condo owners, the response from the residential management community regarding this issue was overwhelmingly favorable, which is unprecedented. And perhaps of even greater importance, a poll of apartment owners indicated that more than 90 percent were in favor of licensing. The response doesnt get any stronger. Although the traditional arguments against licensing are weak, me groups against the legislation are powerful.

Their primary position is that licensing for managers is redundant due to the existing licensing requirements for brokers. But the required courses barely touch upon the duties of property managers, only those pertinent to apartment sales and closings. Courses addressing the financial profiles of a property, local law compliance and physical plant are not taught in any of the schools hosting brokers' and sales agents' programs. With licensing comes written standards, hence a punitive option for those who breach them. Should an individual or group of individuals disturb or break the guidelines established by the legislation, the Secretary of State would able to lift the individual's license. There could be several penalties, if need be, and there would even be a prescription for civil adjudication.