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 for it.
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?
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?
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.
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, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net 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 existing".
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?
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 cooperate:)
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.
Again, it's *not* what I want. It's what code requires. How about this. I'm paying replacement cost coverage for the whole house, $400K limit. If the house burns down, I'm entitled to a new house that has the same square footage, same style, same number of floors, etc. So, 25 years ago:
GFI was not required in a kitchen, outside, in a garage, basement, etc Insulation was typically say R-12, today min by code is R-18 Arc fault was not required in bedrooms, living area, etc, today it is
So, while Allstate is saying the house is covered for $400K replacement cost, you think they can say we're deducting X, from the electrical work, Y, from the insulation, etc? Even though that is the min that is required today? Then why am I paying for $400K in coverage, which is what it takes to actually replace the house, which both I and Allstate agreed to, if they are going to subtract out stuff and then say it cost $375K to replace? The simple fact is you can't replace it without complying with code, that's an implicit part of the whole thing. Now if it costs so much to comply with code that it exceeds the agrees insured value, then that's another thing.
IMO, they are trying to have it both ways. I'm paying for replacement cost capped at $400k and then they are trying to be cheap and not build to min codes. Is expecting it to be built to min codes so unreasonble? WTF am I paying for?
unless the insurance contract actually
They aren't strawman arguments, they go precisely to the point.
That is the strict interpretation of replace. I paid for replacement coverage of the roof. I'm entitled to it being replaced. The fact that code today requires that it cost a little more money isn't my problem. And Allstate knows damn well what the code requires when they agreed to replacement coverage.
One more time, IT CANNOT BE REPLACED WITH ORIGINAL because min code does not allow it.
I think the fundamental disconnect here is that you are looking at the insurance company's obligation as replacing a bunch of pieces, individual components. Shingles, nails, wiring, plumbing, etc. It doesn't work that way. If for example I had a house that burned up, with replacement cost coverage I'm entitled to a new house that has the same functionality as the old one. That is a house with the same square footage, same number of rooms, that has a kitchen bedroom, etc. The fact that today more insulation is the min to code, and that gfci, afci are required, ice daming for the roof, etc and that you can't replace it without it isn't my problem. Without doing that I have no replacement house period.
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.
On 3/23/2013 12:37 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ...
One more time, that doesn't mean the replacement policy covers the differential cost; only the cost to the _original_ condition.
They're not telling you that the repairs won't be to Code; only that their liability is limited to the state of the existing building prior to the damage.
Look up "law and ordinance" riders/policies. As noted above, AFAIK, only FL mandates them (and that only after the big hurricane season when it became such an issue).
And, again, check w/ the State--if there is any such requirement in your locale they'll know it and be able to tell you your recourse under the law. W/o that knowledge you're just blowin' hot air into the teeth of the gale.
I commiserate w/ the problem but w/o some ammo in your gun I think you'll continue to shoot blanks at the target, unfortunately. What you think should be isn't necessarily so.
Oh, do you have a local agent you know well? If the national folks are sending in contract employees and aren't living up to the terms this dude should be able/willing to help. At least he can explain the limitations of the policy coverage. He certainly ought to be able to explain the question of what "replacement" means and whether the newer Code requirements are covered or not. Ask him if they sell the above riders--to late for this claim, of course, but will show the difference in coverages if not included in yours as I suspect is (unfortunately) so.
_I_ think the disconnect here is that you're looking at the insurance company's obligation to have provide a level of replacement beyond that of the original building condition. It doesn't work that way.
See previous comments explaining more about why and how to deal with it going forward...
There's a (I think very slim) chance an adjuster is being overly zealous here, but I really do think the actual legal financial obligation will be determined to be only to the existing condition prior to the damage (unfortunately, and I'm sorry, but that's what I think will be the end result).
The cost of then meeting the additional code reqm'ts, while real, are almost certainly not going to be covered in a policy that doesn't have the explicit rider.
Again I have no way to get to the internal information to determine it is so, but I suspect another thing that has happened goes along w/ my previous supposition re: large-scale disaster coverage--that the insurance companies became much more restrictive in the interpretation after the Gulf debacle when it became clear their rate structure just wasn't computed on the basis of such widespread simultaneous claims but rather treated each individual policy holder as an independent risk. That works pretty well for the random fire or even for (relatively) small disasters like tornadoes but when entire states/regions are impacted at the same time it breaks down entirely.
When I got HO insurance State Farm explained to me some options:
Replacement Cost on Contents (I think that's standard with them, at least i n NY, and it's a darn fine thing to have) also Build to Current Code on the house itself- exactly the issue here- that if my house wasn't up to current code and there was damage to be repaired, the extra cost of bringing it up to current code would be or wouldn't be inclu ded, depending upon whether I chose that (more expensive) option.
If that was an option when you bought insurance and you didn't choose it, t hat was your choice.
When I got insurance I asked what I thought was a reasonable question- what options am I paying for that I might not want, and what additional options are available (such as jewelry, furs, etc. that have sublimits, plus home business equipment coverage, higher liability limits...).
In your case it sounds like you didn't pay for something so you didn't get it. You will have an improved roof vs. what you had before the disaster, bu t you'll have to pay the additional cost for the improvement.
Replacement cost means replace with brand new. No betterment charge if the new is only available as better. Case in point. You have a 40 inch rear projector TV. Lightning kills it, or some other insured peril - it will be replaced with a 40 inch LCD, LED, or Plasma unit since the rear projection is no longer available.
Your P2 PC gets destroyed or stolen and you have replacement cost coverage you get an i3 or i5 unless your old one was a super killer machine in which case you might even get an i7 as a replacement (likely costs less than the old P4 did new anyway).
Without replacement cost you get the depreciated value - so you get $15 for your old P4, and $100 for your rear projection TV.
If hardwood flooring is damaged replacement cost puts in new hardwood flooring - doesn't matter if the old flooring was scuffed and in need of sanding and re-finishing - you get new finished flooring at no extra cost - unless when the insurance was originally taken out there was a disclaimer stating that the floor was not covered due to condition. (extremely unlikely and uncommon)
HomeOwnersHub website 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.