Hello.

Our vacant house had been on the market for 3 weeks when a second
floor toilet supply line broke and let water pour through the house
for at least 24 hours. The dryout took 2 weeks but the independent
adjuster was there on day 2. He recommended a contractor but we felt
that we needed more than one estimate. This absolutely befuddled the
adjuster. In any case, we were waiting for the adjuster to tell us
what would be covered so we would know what to ask contractors to bid
on but he would not finalize his estimate until his "buddy", the
contractor, produced his own. Then the 2 folks made their bottom
line numbers agree. We examined the contractor's estimate and found
several issues but the adjuster would not modify his estimate before
submitting it to our insurance company. So, now we are in the process
of requesting a supplement. This is much more difficult.

Note that, during this time, we had been told that we would get an
initial payout of the depreciated cost of the repairs, less the
deductible. If we actually had the repairs done then they would pay
whatever it cost, allowing even another 20% on top of that for
overhead and profit to a general contractor.

OK, so keep in mind that this house was on the market and the market
here is really bad - there is about a 6-month supply of houses on the
market TODAY. So, along comes a flipper with a lowball offer to buy
the house as-is, for cash, with no home inspection. Our realtor told
us to take the offer and be happy with it because we could end up
fixing the house and then getting it back on the crowded market,
losing another month or so, and then still have to wait for another
buyer. So, we took the offer but are continuing to fight the
insurance company for the items that they missed.

Well, this is the problem: The house is sold. I took tons of
pictures of the items that we have issues with. Now the insurance
company is giving us the "have the contractor contact us when he's
ready to do the work and we will discuss any additional items then"
runaround. And now, the adjuster is saying "well, now that you raise
all of these issues I think that there were some items that I over-
estimated on so I guess I'll just need to come out and re-inspect."
Is that a threat or what?

They are making out like crazy because they don't have to pay for all
of the work - just the depreciated value. So is it unreasonable to
expect them to pay for the "hypothetical" need to remove the radiators
before replacing the subfloors and hardwood floors instead of making a
contractor tell them that they cannot do the work with the radiators
in place?

I have spoken with the state Bureau of Insurance and they can't help
us. This is a weird case of a homeowner fighting to be paid for work
they are not going to have done. But, WE ARE ENTITLED TO THE MONEY
ANYWAYS!!!

Gosh, can anybody help??? Nothing this vague in nature is in the
policy or anywhere else.

Thanks for reading this far.

Lyne

On Aug 15, 3:38 pm, Holly Homeowner wrote:
Hello.

Our vacant house had been on the market for 3 weeks when a second
floor toilet supply line broke and let water pour through the house
for at least 24 hours. The dryout took 2 weeks but the independent
adjuster was there on day 2. He recommended a contractor but we felt
that we needed more than one estimate. This absolutely befuddled the
adjuster. In any case, we were waiting for the adjuster to tell us
what would be covered so we would know what to ask contractors to bid
on but he would not finalize his estimate until his "buddy", the
contractor, produced his own. Then the 2 folks made their bottom
line numbers agree. We examined the contractor's estimate and found
several issues but the adjuster would not modify his estimate before
submitting it to our insurance company. So, now we are in the process
of requesting a supplement. This is much more difficult.

Note that, during this time, we had been told that we would get an
initial payout of the depreciated cost of the repairs, less the
deductible. If we actually had the repairs done then they would pay
whatever it cost, allowing even another 20% on top of that for
overhead and profit to a general contractor.

OK, so keep in mind that this house was on the market and the market
here is really bad - there is about a 6-month supply of houses on the
market TODAY. So, along comes a flipper with a lowball offer to buy
the house as-is, for cash, with no home inspection. Our realtor told
us to take the offer and be happy with it because we could end up
fixing the house and then getting it back on the crowded market,
losing another month or so, and then still have to wait for another
buyer. So, we took the offer but are continuing to fight the
insurance company for the items that they missed.

Well, this is the problem: The house is sold. I took tons of
pictures of the items that we have issues with. Now the insurance
company is giving us the "have the contractor contact us when he's
ready to do the work and we will discuss any additional items then"
runaround. And now, the adjuster is saying "well, now that you raise
all of these issues I think that there were some items that I over-
estimated on so I guess I'll just need to come out and re-inspect."
Is that a threat or what?

They are making out like crazy because they don't have to pay for all
of the work - just the depreciated value. So is it unreasonable to
expect them to pay for the "hypothetical" need to remove the radiators
before replacing the subfloors and hardwood floors instead of making a
contractor tell them that they cannot do the work with the radiators
in place?

I have spoken with the state Bureau of Insurance and they can't help
us. This is a weird case of a homeowner fighting to be paid for work
they are not going to have done. But, WE ARE ENTITLED TO THE MONEY
ANYWAYS!!!

Gosh, can anybody help??? Nothing this vague in nature is in the
policy or anywhere else.

Thanks for reading this far.

Lyne

Maybe I'm missing something (it wouldn't be the first time) but if you
no longer own the home how can you be entitled to an insurance payment
for repairs that are not going to be done? I can see if the insurance
contract says "you can take the money or we'll pay your contractor
directly" as fulfillment of your claim on a house you own. Then you
can take the money and fix it yourself or have the contractor bill
insurance. But if the house is sold the insurance company no longer
has responsibility I would think. If you got a fair price in this
market, where so few qualify qualify anymore and there is a glut of
homes and the banks have no liquidity, you might be fortunate to just
be able to walk away now with the angel buyer.

In article .com,
RickH wrote:


Maybe I'm missing something (it wouldn't be the first time) but if you
no longer own the home how can you be entitled to an insurance payment
for repairs that are not going to be done? I can see if the insurance
contract says "you can take the money or we'll pay your contractor
directly" as fulfillment of your claim on a house you own. Then you
can take the money and fix it yourself or have the contractor bill
insurance. But if the house is sold the insurance company no longer
has responsibility I would think. If you got a fair price in this
market, where so few qualify qualify anymore and there is a glut of
homes and the banks have no liquidity, you might be fortunate to just
be able to walk away now with the angel buyer.

Insurance, in theory, is to make you whole for the loss. How you are
made whole is often up to you. For instance, you can use the insurance
payment to make up the difference between what you might have gotten if
you had sold after you repaired and what the flipper was willing to give
"as is". If you sold before the problems, then yeah you would be right.
They'd owe it to you. How much would be up to the contract and how
much one wants to fight, etc.

"Holly Homeowner" wrote in message
ps.com...
Hello.

Our vacant house had been on the market for 3 weeks when a second
floor toilet supply line broke and let water pour through the house
for at least 24 hours. The dryout took 2 weeks but the independent
adjuster was there on day 2. He recommended a contractor but we felt
that we needed more than one estimate. This absolutely befuddled the
adjuster. In any case, we were waiting for the adjuster to tell us
what would be covered so we would know what to ask contractors to bid
on but he would not finalize his estimate until his "buddy", the
contractor, produced his own. Then the 2 folks made their bottom
line numbers agree. We examined the contractor's estimate and found
several issues but the adjuster would not modify his estimate before
submitting it to our insurance company. So, now we are in the process
of requesting a supplement. This is much more difficult.

Note that, during this time, we had been told that we would get an
initial payout of the depreciated cost of the repairs, less the
deductible. If we actually had the repairs done then they would pay
whatever it cost, allowing even another 20% on top of that for
overhead and profit to a general contractor.

OK, so keep in mind that this house was on the market and the market
here is really bad - there is about a 6-month supply of houses on the
market TODAY. So, along comes a flipper with a lowball offer to buy
the house as-is, for cash, with no home inspection. Our realtor told
us to take the offer and be happy with it because we could end up
fixing the house and then getting it back on the crowded market,
losing another month or so, and then still have to wait for another
buyer. So, we took the offer but are continuing to fight the
insurance company for the items that they missed.

Well, this is the problem: The house is sold. I took tons of
pictures of the items that we have issues with. Now the insurance
company is giving us the "have the contractor contact us when he's
ready to do the work and we will discuss any additional items then"
runaround. And now, the adjuster is saying "well, now that you raise
all of these issues I think that there were some items that I over-
estimated on so I guess I'll just need to come out and re-inspect."
Is that a threat or what?

They are making out like crazy because they don't have to pay for all
of the work - just the depreciated value. So is it unreasonable to
expect them to pay for the "hypothetical" need to remove the radiators
before replacing the subfloors and hardwood floors instead of making a
contractor tell them that they cannot do the work with the radiators
in place?

I have spoken with the state Bureau of Insurance and they can't help
us. This is a weird case of a homeowner fighting to be paid for work
they are not going to have done. But, WE ARE ENTITLED TO THE MONEY
ANYWAYS!!!

Gosh, can anybody help??? Nothing this vague in nature is in the
policy or anywhere else.

I have had a couple claims and they were settled in a similar fashion; my
contractor had to explain to the insurance company why the adjuster was
wrong. Only difference is that I got 80% of the adjuster's amount if I
didn't have it fixed; not too different than your depreciated amount.
It seemed like a reasonable process to me.

Your problem is that you are continuing to fight for the higher amount
eventhough you are not having it fixed. Never thought I would ever say
this, but I am on the insurance company's side here; you can't
simultaneously say the amount is inadequate, but you don't want to have
anything fixed anyhow.

In article ,
"Toller" wrote:


Your problem is that you are continuing to fight for the higher amount
eventhough you are not having it fixed. Never thought I would ever say
this, but I am on the insurance company's side here; you can't
simultaneously say the amount is inadequate, but you don't want to have
anything fixed anyhow.

Again that would depend on the contract. When I had my roof repaired
last summer, they held out money until the job was done, but that was to
give me an incentive to either get the work done or sign off on
something that I was not going to get it done. This was to make sure the
insurance company did not give me the money, me not do the work, and
then try for another full claim the next time it hailed, or at least
that was how it was explained.
However, if I wanted to release them from liability, then I could
get the whole thing right away. They owed it to me either way. At least
IIRC how it was explained.

RickH writes:

Maybe I'm missing something (it wouldn't be the first time) but if you
no longer own the home how can you be entitled to an insurance payment
for repairs that are not going to be done?

The OP owned the home when the loss occurred, right? That's the grounds
for a claim. The loss is paid to the insured whether repairs are performed
or not.

But insurers are almost always deadbeats when it comes to claims. All
their incentives work in that direction. They are experts at
denying/delaying/minimizing claims, and at deluding themselves that somehow
this is fair and ethical, while you are an amateur at collecting claims.
You will get nowhere against them without force. That means hiring a
lawyer, starting with a simple nastygram. If you don't want to hire a
lawyer, then admit you're beaten and take the best offer you can get on
your own.

Because on your own your are already beaten versus this adversary. Don't
kid yourself that something you didn't do caused this, and get bitter.
Accept the swindle for its educational value and get on with your life.

On Aug 15, 5:19 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"Toller" wrote:

Your problem is that you are continuing to fight for the higher amount
eventhough you are not having it fixed. Never thought I would ever say
this, but I am on the insurance company's side here; you can't
simultaneously say the amount is inadequate, but you don't want to have
anything fixed anyhow.

Of course you can. Whether anyone has anything fixed or not is
largely irrelevant as to whether the payment is reasonable. The
purpose of insurance is to make someone whole. In this case, that
would be to pay a reasonable amount to cover the cost of the repairs,
whether she has it fixed or not. Suppose a car is totaled in an
accident? Should the person have to repair it to get the actual
value? Or suppose I have her damaged house and hire the most
expensive guy around, who charges $100 an hour and takes twice as long
to fix it? Should the insurance company pay for that, just cause
that's what it cost?

What should have been done was to get several estimates from
contractors to do the repair. Then look at the range of estimates
compared to what the insurance company is offering, and the terms of
what the policy says. If the offer is way off from an average price,
or better yet below the lowest price, then she has a legitimate beef.
She can show the quotes to the insurance company and if they still
won't budge, then small claims may be an option. Doubt the insurance
company is gonna get scared by a lawyer's letter, cause they know it
would cost so much to sue them that it's only a bluff.


Again that would depend on the contract. When I had my roof repaired
last summer, they held out money until the job was done, but that was to
give me an incentive to either get the work done or sign off on
something that I was not going to get it done. This was to make sure the
insurance company did not give me the money, me not do the work, and
then try for another full claim the next time it hailed, or at least
that was how it was explained.
However, if I wanted to release them from liability, then I could
get the whole thing right away. They owed it to me either way. At least
IIRC how it was explained.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 15, 5:19 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"Toller" wrote:

Your problem is that you are continuing to fight for the higher amount
eventhough you are not having it fixed. Never thought I would ever say
this, but I am on the insurance company's side here; you can't
simultaneously say the amount is inadequate, but you don't want to have
anything fixed anyhow.

Of course you can. Whether anyone has anything fixed or not is
largely irrelevant as to whether the payment is reasonable. The
purpose of insurance is to make someone whole. In this case, that
would be to pay a reasonable amount to cover the cost of the repairs,
whether she has it fixed or not. Suppose a car is totaled in an
accident? Should the person have to repair it to get the actual
value?

A totaled car is rather different than water damage.
How much does it cost to make the person whole from water damage?
It is very hard to say accurately, but a strong indicator is how much they
spent to fix the damage.
Choosing to forgo the repair is a clear sign that maybe it took very little.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Insurance, in theory, is to make you whole for the loss. How you are
made whole is often up to you. For instance, you can use the insurance
payment to make up the difference between what you might have gotten if
you had sold after you repaired and what the flipper was willing to give
"as is". If you sold before the problems, then yeah you would be right.
They'd owe it to you. How much would be up to the contract and how
much one wants to fight, etc.

The OP no longer owns the home. She states "They are making out like
crazy because they don't have to pay for all
of the work - just the depreciated value." She had _agreed_ to the
depreciated value b/4 the house sold.

If you reread her letter, she attempts to lay blame for selling on the
Realtor. Now the insurance company. In her greed, she grabbed every
nickel she could from the house flipper & insurance company. She now
thinks she deserves more, on a home she doesn't own. She's now has
remorse for selling quick and cheap.

She's nothing more than a slumlord, looking for a quick buck. She's
gotten what she was entitled to, otherwise, she wouldn't have settled
for a check made out to her.

On Aug 15, 6:39 pm, "Toller" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Aug 15, 5:19 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"Toller" wrote:

Your problem is that you are continuing to fight for the higher amount
eventhough you are not having it fixed. Never thought I would ever say
this, but I am on the insurance company's side here; you can't
simultaneously say the amount is inadequate, but you don't want to have
anything fixed anyhow.

Of course you can. Whether anyone has anything fixed or not is
largely irrelevant as to whether the payment is reasonable. The
purpose of insurance is to make someone whole. In this case, that
would be to pay a reasonable amount to cover the cost of the repairs,
whether she has it fixed or not. Suppose a car is totaled in an
accident? Should the person have to repair it to get the actual
value?

A totaled car is rather different than water damage.
How much does it cost to make the person whole from water damage?
It is very hard to say accurately, but a strong indicator is how much they
spent to fix the damage.
Choosing to forgo the repair is a clear sign that maybe it took very little.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then I guess Larry Silverman should get a reduced payment for the
World Trade Center loss too, cause it hasn't been replaced.

In article ,
"Toller" wrote:

A totaled car is rather different than water damage.
How much does it cost to make the person whole from water damage?
It is very hard to say accurately, but a strong indicator is how much they
spent to fix the damage.
Choosing to forgo the repair is a clear sign that maybe it took very little.

The insurance guys have plenty of experience in what it takes
to repair water damage. They do it all the time. This ain't rocket
surgery.

You should start by reading your insurance policy. Many policies obligate
the insurer to "repair, rebuild or replace" the damaged property but only to
pay "actual cash value" if the property is not repaired. The "actual cash
value" may be substantially less than the cost to repair. Since you no
longer own the property, you may be limited to "actual cash value."

--
Remove -NOSPAM- to contact me.

Holly Homeowner wrote:
Hello.

Our vacant house had been on the market for 3 weeks when a second
floor toilet supply line broke and let water pour through the house
for at least 24 hours. The dryout took 2 weeks but the independent
adjuster was there on day 2. He recommended a contractor but we
felt that we needed more than one estimate. This absolutely
befuddled the adjuster. In any case, we were waiting for the
adjuster to tell us what would be covered so we would know what to
ask contractors to bid on but he would not finalize his estimate
until his "buddy", the contractor, produced his own. Then the 2
folks made their bottom line numbers agree. We examined the
contractor's estimate and found several issues but the adjuster
would not modify his estimate before submitting it to our insurance
company. So, now we are in the process of requesting a supplement.
This is much more difficult.

Note that, during this time, we had been told that we would get an
initial payout of the depreciated cost of the repairs, less the
deductible. If we actually had the repairs done then they would pay
whatever it cost, allowing even another 20% on top of that for
overhead and profit to a general contractor.

OK, so keep in mind that this house was on the market and the market
here is really bad - there is about a 6-month supply of houses on
the market TODAY. So, along comes a flipper with a lowball offer
to buy the house as-is, for cash, with no home inspection. Our
realtor told us to take the offer and be happy with it because we
could end up fixing the house and then getting it back on the
crowded market, losing another month or so, and then still have to
wait for another buyer. So, we took the offer but are continuing
to fight the insurance company for the items that they missed.

Well, this is the problem: The house is sold. I took tons of
pictures of the items that we have issues with. Now the insurance
company is giving us the "have the contractor contact us when he's
ready to do the work and we will discuss any additional items then"
runaround. And now, the adjuster is saying "well, now that you
raise all of these issues I think that there were some items that I
over- estimated on so I guess I'll just need to come out and
re-inspect." Is that a threat or what?

They are making out like crazy because they don't have to pay for
all of the work - just the depreciated value. So is it
unreasonable to expect them to pay for the "hypothetical" need to
remove the radiators before replacing the subfloors and hardwood
floors instead of making a contractor tell them that they cannot do
the work with the radiators in place?

I'm having trouble grasping the concept of "depreciated value" of
repair work. "Work" can't be depreciated, only property. Physical
things.

Perhaps the insurance company was telling you they would pay for the
depreciated value of *things* that were ruined OR that they would pay
for the work necessary to restore/fix them (less deductible in both
cases)? If yes, that is normal...they won't pay for you to go out and
buy new things because you have received value from using the things.
If you buy a new car and five years it is totaled, the insurance
company isn't going to pay you what you paid for the car, it is going
to pay the current value.

As far as your radiator question, a contractor bidding on
removing/replacing a floor already knows he'd have to remove and
replace them and the cost of doing so would be included in his overall
price - no need to specifically mention and price that aspect though
he could.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Richard J Kinch wrote:

But insurers are almost always deadbeats when it comes to claims.
All their incentives work in that direction. They are experts at
denying/delaying/minimizing claims,

Not necessarily.

When there is a catastrophic happening - one that affects
hundreds/thousands of policy holders - insurance companies don't have
sufficient adjuster manpower to handle the flood of claims. To do so,
they use "cat adjusters".

Cat adjusters are independant companies who hire independent adjusters
on piece work. The companies are paid on a sliding scale according to
the size of the claim...the bigger the claim, the more they earn. The
independent adjusters are paid a percentage of that. Thus, there is
an economic advantage to both to submit the largest possible claim and
that is exactly what they do.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

"dadiOH" wrote in message
news:ApXwi.7382$xc5.4919@trnddc06...
Holly Homeowner wrote:
Hello.

Our vacant house had been on the market for 3 weeks when a second
floor toilet supply line broke and let water pour through the house
for at least 24 hours. The dryout took 2 weeks but the independent
adjuster was there on day 2. He recommended a contractor but we
felt that we needed more than one estimate. This absolutely
befuddled the adjuster. In any case, we were waiting for the
adjuster to tell us what would be covered so we would know what to
ask contractors to bid on but he would not finalize his estimate
until his "buddy", the contractor, produced his own. Then the 2
folks made their bottom line numbers agree. We examined the
contractor's estimate and found several issues but the adjuster
would not modify his estimate before submitting it to our insurance
company. So, now we are in the process of requesting a supplement.
This is much more difficult.

Note that, during this time, we had been told that we would get an
initial payout of the depreciated cost of the repairs, less the
deductible. If we actually had the repairs done then they would pay
whatever it cost, allowing even another 20% on top of that for
overhead and profit to a general contractor.

OK, so keep in mind that this house was on the market and the market
here is really bad - there is about a 6-month supply of houses on
the market TODAY. So, along comes a flipper with a lowball offer
to buy the house as-is, for cash, with no home inspection. Our
realtor told us to take the offer and be happy with it because we
could end up fixing the house and then getting it back on the
crowded market, losing another month or so, and then still have to
wait for another buyer. So, we took the offer but are continuing
to fight the insurance company for the items that they missed.

Well, this is the problem: The house is sold. I took tons of
pictures of the items that we have issues with. Now the insurance
company is giving us the "have the contractor contact us when he's
ready to do the work and we will discuss any additional items then"
runaround. And now, the adjuster is saying "well, now that you
raise all of these issues I think that there were some items that I
over- estimated on so I guess I'll just need to come out and
re-inspect." Is that a threat or what?

They are making out like crazy because they don't have to pay for
all of the work - just the depreciated value. So is it
unreasonable to expect them to pay for the "hypothetical" need to
remove the radiators before replacing the subfloors and hardwood
floors instead of making a contractor tell them that they cannot do
the work with the radiators in place?

I'm having trouble grasping the concept of "depreciated value" of
repair work. "Work" can't be depreciated, only property. Physical
things.

Perhaps the insurance company was telling you they would pay for the
depreciated value of *things* that were ruined OR that they would pay
for the work necessary to restore/fix them (less deductible in both
cases)? If yes, that is normal...they won't pay for you to go out and
buy new things because you have received value from using the things.
If you buy a new car and five years it is totaled, the insurance
company isn't going to pay you what you paid for the car, it is going
to pay the current value.

As far as your radiator question, a contractor bidding on
removing/replacing a floor already knows he'd have to remove and
replace them and the cost of doing so would be included in his overall
price - no need to specifically mention and price that aspect though
he could.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico


Get a public adjuster. He will represent you not the insurance company.
Well worth his fee and (as was my case), the insurance company tends to be
more flexible when working with them. Also, during the repair/rebuild most
likely you will need a permit for some of the work. Since the work has to be
inspected there may be code related issues. Your home owner's insurance
policy should cover all costs required to bring anything up to code. Get a
separate bill for any costs related to code upgrades.
MLD

Apparently your adjuster is on kick back / take

"Holly Homeowner" wrote in message
ps.com...
Hello.

Our vacant house had been on the market for 3 weeks when a second
floor toilet supply line broke and let water pour through the house
for at least 24 hours. The dryout took 2 weeks but the independent
adjuster was there on day 2. He recommended a contractor but we felt
that we needed more than one estimate. This absolutely befuddled the
adjuster. In any case, we were waiting for the adjuster to tell us
what would be covered so we would know what to ask contractors to bid
on but he would not finalize his estimate until his "buddy", the
contractor, produced his own. Then the 2 folks made their bottom
line numbers agree. We examined the contractor's estimate and found
several issues but the adjuster would not modify his estimate before
submitting it to our insurance company. So, now we are in the process
of requesting a supplement. This is much more difficult.

Note that, during this time, we had been told that we would get an
initial payout of the depreciated cost of the repairs, less the
deductible. If we actually had the repairs done then they would pay
whatever it cost, allowing even another 20% on top of that for
overhead and profit to a general contractor.

OK, so keep in mind that this house was on the market and the market
here is really bad - there is about a 6-month supply of houses on the
market TODAY. So, along comes a flipper with a lowball offer to buy
the house as-is, for cash, with no home inspection. Our realtor told
us to take the offer and be happy with it because we could end up
fixing the house and then getting it back on the crowded market,
losing another month or so, and then still have to wait for another
buyer. So, we took the offer but are continuing to fight the
insurance company for the items that they missed.

Well, this is the problem: The house is sold. I took tons of
pictures of the items that we have issues with. Now the insurance
company is giving us the "have the contractor contact us when he's
ready to do the work and we will discuss any additional items then"
runaround. And now, the adjuster is saying "well, now that you raise
all of these issues I think that there were some items that I over-
estimated on so I guess I'll just need to come out and re-inspect."
Is that a threat or what?

They are making out like crazy because they don't have to pay for all
of the work - just the depreciated value. So is it unreasonable to
expect them to pay for the "hypothetical" need to remove the radiators
before replacing the subfloors and hardwood floors instead of making a
contractor tell them that they cannot do the work with the radiators
in place?

I have spoken with the state Bureau of Insurance and they can't help
us. This is a weird case of a homeowner fighting to be paid for work
they are not going to have done. But, WE ARE ENTITLED TO THE MONEY
ANYWAYS!!!

Gosh, can anybody help??? Nothing this vague in nature is in the
policy or anywhere else.

Thanks for reading this far.

Lyne

In article ,
says...
RickH writes:

Maybe I'm missing something (it wouldn't be the first time) but if you
no longer own the home how can you be entitled to an insurance payment
for repairs that are not going to be done?

The OP owned the home when the loss occurred, right? That's the grounds
for a claim. The loss is paid to the insured whether repairs are performed
or not.

That's generally true (unless there's a mortgage, then the loss is often
paid to the mortgagee), but the method of payment often depends on
whether the work is performed or not.

Many replacement-cost homeowners policies specify that they pay repair
cost only if the repairs are actually performed within 12 months of the
loss, otherwise the customer receives only the depreciated Actual Cash
Value of the loss.

If the OP reads the replacement cost provision of the policy, it will
probably have language like that.

Now, it is still possible that the original estimate was too low -- if
some damage was missed entirely, then the Actual Cash Value of that
damage would not have been paid up front. If the OP had kept the home
and fixed it, the supplement would have been handled then. But since
the OP opted not to complete the repairs and receive replacement cost,
that part of the process never happened.

OP can certainly ask for more ACV, but the company may dispute the
additional money and might be contractually entitled to reinspect before
paying.

Disclaimer: unless you see my name on your declarations, I'm not your
insurance agent, I haven't read your policy, and I probably don't even
live in the same state. I am not a lawyer or a claims adjuster.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

"RickH" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 15, 3:38 pm, Holly Homeowner wrote:
Hello.

Our vacant house had been on the market for 3 weeks when a second
floor toilet supply line broke and let water pour through the house
for at least 24 hours. The dryout took 2 weeks but the independent
adjuster was there on day 2. He recommended a contractor but we felt
that we needed more than one estimate. This absolutely befuddled the
adjuster. In any case, we were waiting for the adjuster to tell us
what would be covered so we would know what to ask contractors to bid
on but he would not finalize his estimate until his "buddy", the
contractor, produced his own. Then the 2 folks made their bottom
line numbers agree. We examined the contractor's estimate and found
several issues but the adjuster would not modify his estimate before
submitting it to our insurance company. So, now we are in the process
of requesting a supplement. This is much more difficult.

Note that, during this time, we had been told that we would get an
initial payout of the depreciated cost of the repairs, less the
deductible. If we actually had the repairs done then they would pay
whatever it cost, allowing even another 20% on top of that for
overhead and profit to a general contractor.

OK, so keep in mind that this house was on the market and the market
here is really bad - there is about a 6-month supply of houses on the
market TODAY. So, along comes a flipper with a lowball offer to buy
the house as-is, for cash, with no home inspection. Our realtor told
us to take the offer and be happy with it because we could end up
fixing the house and then getting it back on the crowded market,
losing another month or so, and then still have to wait for another
buyer. So, we took the offer but are continuing to fight the
insurance company for the items that they missed.

Well, this is the problem: The house is sold. I took tons of
pictures of the items that we have issues with. Now the insurance
company is giving us the "have the contractor contact us when he's
ready to do the work and we will discuss any additional items then"
runaround. And now, the adjuster is saying "well, now that you raise
all of these issues I think that there were some items that I over-
estimated on so I guess I'll just need to come out and re-inspect."
Is that a threat or what?

They are making out like crazy because they don't have to pay for all
of the work - just the depreciated value. So is it unreasonable to
expect them to pay for the "hypothetical" need to remove the radiators
before replacing the subfloors and hardwood floors instead of making a
contractor tell them that they cannot do the work with the radiators
in place?

I have spoken with the state Bureau of Insurance and they can't help
us. This is a weird case of a homeowner fighting to be paid for work
they are not going to have done. But, WE ARE ENTITLED TO THE MONEY
ANYWAYS!!!

Gosh, can anybody help??? Nothing this vague in nature is in the
policy or anywhere else.

Thanks for reading this far.

Lyne

Maybe I'm missing something (it wouldn't be the first time) but if you
no longer own the home how can you be entitled to an insurance payment
for repairs that are not going to be done? I can see if the insurance
contract says "you can take the money or we'll pay your contractor
directly" as fulfillment of your claim on a house you own. Then you
can take the money and fix it yourself or have the contractor bill
insurance. But if the house is sold the insurance company no longer
has responsibility I would think. If you got a fair price in this
market, where so few qualify qualify anymore and there is a glut of
homes and the banks have no liquidity, you might be fortunate to just
be able to walk away now with the angel buyer.



The damage occurred while they still owned it and they are entitled to ALL
the insurance money. The adjuster is in collusion with the contractor and
this needs to be reported to the state insurance board and state attorney
general. They did NOT get a fair price because of the damage done and the
insurance company's crooked adjuster influenced them to take a loss on the
house because of corruption.