"Insurance work"...

[jamesy boy]

...Plasterers often advertise "insurance work" as one of their services...what do they mean?

[smurfchops]

If you have work done and the insurance company are going to pay, your plasterers will take on the work. Not all builders like insurance work as insurance companies take so long to pay - could be three months - and the client won't always pay, as the insurance company are going to make the cheque out to the builder.

[Buenchico]

Judie's answer covers most of the main points. It's worth pointing out, though, the reason why plasterers (and others) like insurance work:

If you ask a tradesman for a quote on a job, he might say "I can do it for a grand". When you look doubtful and say that you'll get back to him, he'll say "Tell you what, guv, I'll be cutting my own throat but I reckon I could do it for �800". So 'private' work only earns him a fairly low amount. If, however, before getting a quote, you tell the tradesman that the insurance company will be paying, he'll probably say, "Lucky you were insured mate. That's an expensive job you've got there. I reckon I'll have to bill them for at least �1500". So, 'insurance' work work can bring in nearly double the earnings of 'private' work. (The insurance companies are, of course, wise to this - which is why they normally require a minimum of three quotes - but, all the same, tradesmen usually get paid much more for 'insurance' jobs than for others).

Anyone who doubts the validity of what I've just written should try taking a car, with a large dent in the wing, into any garage. I guarantee that, when you ask for a quote, you won't immediately be given a figure. Instead you'll receive a question: "Is it an insurance job?"

Chris

[KARL]

Chris is absolutely correct. Moreover, various scumbags (including, in particular, predatory tradesmen) will deliberately provoke a dispute (particularly by overcharging) which then leads to either of two scenarios. In one you give in to threats of court action ("debt recovery", where the court will almost certainly side with the trader, ask any lawyer what a consumer's chances are) and settle out of court (loadsamoney), or, you bring into play the legal-cover-clause of your insurance policy and the insurer takes over the resolution/settlement task. In this latter case the insurer cuts a deal with the trader to avoid costly litigation, you end up paying the margin plus you and everyone else pays through a higher premium. Either way, the trader wins because he knows to overcharge by a wide margin, not just a modest one, to counter the cut anticipated through the bargaining procedure - and also for the most unlikely scrutiny in court, should you refuse to be so brazenly shafted. This is a minority practice but goes on all the time.