When the HOA, mitigating water damage, replaces wood flooring under covering then replaces ONLY HALF of the floor covering (linoleum) in a 6×5 foot entryway with a different color linoleum, leaving an elevated ridge where the olf and new linoleum overlap (which is a safety issue, ‘can hurt one’s foot’ if slipping on the elevated section) the HOA defaults to con such as replacing with FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT. Such action decreases property value, decreases value upon sale and is an extreme eyesore in one’s entryway foyer…. in addition, the same needs occur in the kitchen and they propose to do similarly. This is unconscionable and nowhere does any example regarding matching or functional equivalent discussions address such travesty. How does one address this aspect of matching and functional equivalent?
We’re currently fighting our insurance company to replace siding damaged in a bad hail storm. They no longer make the color siding we have on our home, so they are just required to replace, not necessarily color match. They claim that they can paint the vinyl siding to match, which will be more upkeep, how is that a fair compromise?
Hello,
Insurer may not be required to fulfill the condition of matching (depending on your state requirements) but the property must be brought to pre loss condition. If you had a uniform siding than that’s what is owed. Your old siding was maintenance free. If you install a different product and than paint it, it will now require a constant maintenance (repainting every once in a while to keep the color or address the paint flaking etc.). Therefore, you will not be properly indemnified as maintenance will require cost of repainting. Try find a public adjuster to help you out.
Hello,
Insurer may not be required to fulfill the condition of matching (depending on your state requirements) but the property must be brought to pre loss condition. If you had a uniform siding than that’s what is owed. Your old siding was maintenance free. If you install a different product and than paint it, it will now require a constant maintenance (repainting every once in a while to keep the color or address the paint flaking etc.). Therefore, you will not be properly indemnified as maintenance will require cost of repainting. Try find a public adjuster to help you out.
I HAVE ACV. SOME OF MY CABINETS WERE DAMAGED BY FIRE. ADJUSTER SAID SINCE THEY NO LONGER MAKE THESE CABINETS, HE WOULD HAVE TO MATCH AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE. THEY WOULD NOT REPLACE ALL THE CABINETS. I LIVE IN LOUISIANA IS THIS CORRECT
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Interesting Article, would like to see how this also applies to the CP Policies in commercial lines.
When the HOA, mitigating water damage, replaces wood flooring under covering then replaces ONLY HALF of the floor covering (linoleum) in a 6×5 foot entryway with a different color linoleum, leaving an elevated ridge where the olf and new linoleum overlap (which is a safety issue, ‘can hurt one’s foot’ if slipping on the elevated section) the HOA defaults to con such as replacing with FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT. Such action decreases property value, decreases value upon sale and is an extreme eyesore in one’s entryway foyer…. in addition, the same needs occur in the kitchen and they propose to do similarly. This is unconscionable and nowhere does any example regarding matching or functional equivalent discussions address such travesty. How does one address this aspect of matching and functional equivalent?
We’re currently fighting our insurance company to replace siding damaged in a bad hail storm. They no longer make the color siding we have on our home, so they are just required to replace, not necessarily color match. They claim that they can paint the vinyl siding to match, which will be more upkeep, how is that a fair compromise?
Hello,
Insurer may not be required to fulfill the condition of matching (depending on your state requirements) but the property must be brought to pre loss condition. If you had a uniform siding than that’s what is owed. Your old siding was maintenance free. If you install a different product and than paint it, it will now require a constant maintenance (repainting every once in a while to keep the color or address the paint flaking etc.). Therefore, you will not be properly indemnified as maintenance will require cost of repainting. Try find a public adjuster to help you out.
Hello,
Insurer may not be required to fulfill the condition of matching (depending on your state requirements) but the property must be brought to pre loss condition. If you had a uniform siding than that’s what is owed. Your old siding was maintenance free. If you install a different product and than paint it, it will now require a constant maintenance (repainting every once in a while to keep the color or address the paint flaking etc.). Therefore, you will not be properly indemnified as maintenance will require cost of repainting. Try find a public adjuster to help you out.
I HAVE ACV. SOME OF MY CABINETS WERE DAMAGED BY FIRE. ADJUSTER SAID SINCE THEY NO LONGER MAKE THESE CABINETS, HE WOULD HAVE TO MATCH AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE. THEY WOULD NOT REPLACE ALL THE CABINETS. I LIVE IN LOUISIANA IS THIS CORRECT