I did exactly that with the adjuster. She claims sheetrock
repair, stain sealing, painting can be done for $1100. I have
quotes from 4 painters from $2800 to $4000. The $1100
is just so totally out of whack for the NJ/NYC area in
particular, that it's a joke. So, I said to her, fine, give me
the names of a couple painters who will do it for $1100
and I'll call them. She says Allstate doesn't do that, but
they know that it can be done for the $1100..... After
insisting for two days that they will only pay for one coat,
I now have her conceeding to do two coats and the
amount is up to ~$1800. Still low, but better.
How about this. They had $74 for replacement of a powered
roof fan. Upon looking closer, I see it actually says it's for
the "cover only". So, I'm like, they don't sell just the replacement
top part for a roof fan. Especially not for a 25 year old one.
She insists that yes they do.... Just ask your roofer. Fortunately
the roofer was just getting in his truck. So I yell, down to him...
Answer: They don't exist. She did then go redo it and I think
there is like $250 in there for it now. But it justs makes you
wonder what experience they really have.....
Also, the most extensive water damage was to a section
of cathedral ceiling. The worst shingle damage was also
to the very peak of that ceiling. The cathedral ceiling has
not been opened to verify that it's dried out. For all I know,
it could still be soaked. So, I proposed that they pay for
pulling a couple sheets of plywood as part of the re-roof to
verify that it's dry and OK. She says it's pefectly fine for
plywood to get wet, they even do it in new construction.
I tell here, yes, but that's without insulation underneath and
drywall ceiling the cavity. It could be full of water and could
mold. She says that just doesn't happen......
In retrospect, the right thing to do would have been to
open the drywall from the inside across at least one
section so that it could dry out quickly, etc. Then they
would be paying for that.....
Interesting information, especially about asking for the name or names of
skilled technicians that the adjuster believes will honor the adjuster's
Could you say a little more about the "public adjuster" idea? That's
different than hiring an attorney. Do you think that public adjusters who
represent the policyholder are a good idea? -- sometimes, always, never?
Yeah. They are a kind of "traitor" to the typical company
adjuster but they really do a good job for their clients. Many
plaintiff attorneys try to run them out of business because they
keep the attorneys from earning a big fee. The trick here is to
tell the adjuster exactly what you expect and know what he/she is
going to charge you to do the job EXACTLY as you want it done.
They will usually be very honest about what you will be able to
collect for and what you won't. Also, be that adjuster's note
taker. Follow them every step and take notes and argue you case
when you think they might have missed something. That way YOUR
adjuster knows all of your concerns and they know the language
and how to get you the best deal. But, just like everything else
there are the good ones and the not so good ones so stay on their
heels and express your concerns no matter how trivial. They work
I had three experiences where insurance claims were involved. All
three were fire damage, on residential, two industrial.
Case #1 Public adjuster got much more done than the insurance
adjuster got. Homeowner also paid for some extra work and upgrades
at the time.
Case #2. The insurance company paid the maximum of the policy so an
adjuster would get no more. Why pay an adjuster for that?
Case #3 Adjuster was able to collect on damages that we would not
even think about. This was a payout of over a million dollars. Well
worth the 10% fee.
Oh, fees are negotiable.
People should ALWAYS BUY REPLACEMENT INSURANCE!
Not the depreciated value where the homowner ONLY gets paid for the
cost of stuff from goodwill........
This 5 year old sofa was 700 bucks new now valued at 100 bucks
I have replacement coverage. But they still screw you.
Here's another trick. On the roof sections that they will
pay to replace, they won't pay for ice daming material
along the lower sections. Why? Well, the house does
not have it now, so they say it's an "upgrade". But both
I and the roofer stand there and tell the adjuster it's
mandated by code. Her response, you're policy doesn't
have a "to code" provision. That's an increased premium
over replacement coverage. WTF? You can't replace
the roof and not do it to code, so why shouldn't they pay?
Ultimately that's one thing I'm going to fight them on
more, but waiting until I figure out how to proceed.
As for the sofa, I had an older sofa that was in the loft
that got some water damage on it. It's not totally wrecked,
but it has spots that won't come out. She gave me $200
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:42:42 -0700 (PDT), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
Sounds like they are paying for replacement, just as your policy
states. Doubt you'll get any more than that as you are getting what
you paid for.
Step back for a minute. What if you were insuring your next door
neighbor's house. He has roof damage and you agreed when he took out
the policy to provide replacement. Meantime, codes changed. What
would you pay? Would you have upped the premium he paid you?
That's all I want. Replacement of the roof section.
You can't replace it without doing ice dam, it's not
allowed by code. It's would be like saying we pay for replacement of
an AC unit, but won't pay the extra $200 because today they are more
expensive, use R410A, etc.
If I'm insuring it, then I'd pay what it takes to replace the
roof to existing code. You cannot replace it otherwise.
I didn't set the $1800 premiums, Allstate did. They should
know that in almost all cold areas of the country ice
daming is required on the lower sections. It's part of the
national/international building codes.
On 3/23/2013 7:42 AM, email@example.com wrote:
Insurance is a contract. If the terms state replacement then as an
example you get the value of a 10 year old paint job not the money to do
a brand new paint job.
Why would they pay for ice dam material or anything else that you didn't
have if the terms do not provide for it?
No, you have that wrong. There are two types of policies.
Cash value and replacement cost. With replacement cost,
you get the full cost to replace it, regardless of the age. With cash
value, you get the depreciated value of the item.
I have RCV and have been paying the higher premiums.
The terms provide for replacement of the roof. That
should include what it actually takes to replace it. You
can't choose not to use ice dam material, its required
by code. The roof cannot be replaced without it.
If I was asking for something that is optional,
eg upgraded shingles, that would be a different story.
On 3/23/2013 9:15 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
But, if it wasn't included originally, it isn't replacement. The policy
almost certainly doesn't say "rebuild to current code" but "replace
Don't think you're likely to get anywhere on the change in code
provisions part unless you can find something in the language of the
actual policy that implies such. Otherwise, they're correct in the
interpretation of "replace".
Again, as others have noted, you should be able to get in touch w/ your
State Insurance Commisioner's office (or whatever it's called there) and
find out what actual regulation from the State is -- or may even be on a
web site FAQ sufficient info to tell whether you've got a beef that
might have even a proverbial snowball's chance or not. (My guess is
not, but won't tell you not to push as much as can...)
Explain how you replace a roof without doing it to code.
I had a roof. It's gone, it has to be replaced.
How about this. Let's say I have an old 50" rear projection
TV and it gets damaged. I have a replacement cost policy.
It's just as impossible to replace that TV with an exact new
one as it is to replace the roof without ice dam material. Let's
say I find someone who has a brand new 50" rear projection
TV still sitting in the box. It's $5000. Is the insurance
company going to pay to replace it with that, because it's the
exact replacement? Or are they going to buy a new 50"
TV for $700 and give me that because it's the functional
equivalent and what is available today?
Or how about if you had a car accident and the OEM
original part cost $100, but it's no longer available. All
that is available is a similar part, but it's better quality
and cost $300. Can the insurance company say,
we're not paying $300 for it, because it's a better part? Or
do they have to fix the car, so it's functional again?
On 3/23/2013 10:47 AM, email@example.com wrote:
But the insurance doesn't have to pay the difference between what was
and what you want is the point unless the insurance contract actually
says so--and I doubt it actually does.
...[immaterial strawman arguments elided for brevity]...
Well, let us know if you prevail, but I'm not betting on anything beyond
the strict interpretation of "replace"...
Again, read the fine print of the actual contract (not just the summary
pages but the actual full text) and check w/ the State but I think
replace will be replace as original not replace w/ additional.
Had a friend who had a home fire in a 200 year old poor condition home
that still had some knob and tube wiring.
The insurance company paid for a complete rewire, including GFCIs, arc
fault breakers everything including insulation, when most of the home
wasnt insulated at all:(
INSURANCE IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BRING EVERYTHING ITS PAYING TO REBUILD
UP TO CURRENT CODE!
Whoever has the problem with them refusing should call their states
insurance commisioner! One letter from them should get the company to
The building code may require a given level of reconstruction to obtain
occupancy permit, etc., but that a given policy will cover the cost
above that of original replacement is dependent on the terms of the policy.
There are policies to cover such known as "law and ordinance" policies
but even they have limitations.
BTW, afaik, FL is the only state mandating insurors provide such
policies. Homeowners there can opt out to avoid the higher premiums but
must sign an explicit waiver to do so. Elsewhere, it's up to the
insured to purchase such riders if desired.
On 3/23/2013 12:39 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Example of what? Totally different case and I seriously doubt the
insurance company actually did much (if anything) that wasn't in the
terms of the particular policy. For fire protection they may have a
policy of improving simply as a a future cost-avoidance measure.
My observation has also been that in cases of "one of" claims they'll
likely be somewhat more flexible in adjudicating claims than are in such
widespread disaster claims simply owing to the large exposure overall.
I don't have access to the actuarial data internally to be able to tell
but I have long suspected the insurance companies don't adequately
address common-cause large-scale events in their rate-making
computations so that hurricanes in particular do them serious financial
damage (in their terms, anyway :) ) and they are therefore pretty
aggressive in trying to limit the exposure after such events.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.