Claims Evaluation- Part II
[PCQ Note: This is the second in a two-part series in managing risk. In the first article I discussed managing risk “from the top down,” i.e. identification of what aspects of real estate brokerage practice needs the greatest attention, and proper evaluation and treatment of customer complaints before a claim becomes a crisis.]
Where Do Claims Originate? Claims come from three different sources: (1) The customer, (2) the customer’s lawyer, and (3) the Oregon Real Estate Agency.
Claims By the Clients Themselves. If the client is presenting the claim on their own behalf, the real estate company is in the best position to have direct control over managing that risk. In fact, this may be the one and only time a principal broker has actual control over the outcome of the claim.1 Here are some tips:
Claims By Attorneys. If the claim is presented in the form of a demand letter from the customer’s attorney the ante’ will probably go up exponentially. It is at this point that the principal broker begins to lose control over the outcome of the case. The attorney has counseled his or her client about the “value” of the case (correctly or incorrectly), and now the client has a higher (and perhaps different) level of expectation about the outcome of their claim. Here are some tips in evaluating the claim once an attorney is involved:
Claims to the Oregon Real Estate Agency. Remember that claims to the Oregon Real Estate Agency sometimes can also become civil claims in court or arbitration. Unfortunately, sometimes claims get filed simultaneously, both with the Agency and in court or arbitration. Here are some tips in dealing with the Agency.
Conclusion
Litigation or arbitration can sometimes take on a life of its own. It is rarely worth the cost and should be used only as a last resort. Principal brokers can do much to stem the tide of litigation by – first and foremost – training their agents to recognize where the land mines are buried. If a particular agent continues to ignore company policy after being properly counseled, he/she should be let go. Principal broker supervision should be real, substantive, and continuous. While none of these precautions can prevent customers from becoming dissatisfied, they can help reduce the risk of dissatisfaction ripening into a catastrophic claim.
© 2010 QUERIN LAW, LLC
1 I am distinguishing this type of claim from those in the first article simply by degree. The type of claim discussed in Part One deals with the general dissatisfaction of the client before it ripens into an actual demand for money or other relief.
2 While this may sound overly simplistic, I have settled cases between sellers and buyers that involved low dollars amounts and a simple apology.
3 This is the litmus test for finding a breach of fiduciary duty, i.e. did the agent fulfill their fiduciary duty to the client as prescribed by applicable industry standards?
4 The use of an attorney during the interview can be quite helpful in keeping the proceeding on track. Some investigators have a habit of asking open-ended questions, which can invite the agent to give long rambling responses. Never allow the investigator to become argumentative with the agent or vice versa.
5 It is true that under Oregon’s Open Records Law, obtaining information while and investigation is pending may be refused. But in my experience, the Agency has never raised this in opposition to a formal request to see the file.