I have empathy for the owner whom had over $600,000 in damages with less than $300,000 in insurance recovery due to depreciation but find myself wondering whey they did not have replacement cost for their property insurance (or insurance to value at RC if there was a coinsurance penatly). Was it not offered, not available or rejected because it was a little more costly to insure @ 100% RC value? If the latter, why should the taxpayers pick up the tab for a poor business decsion? Not saying that was the reason but if it was?
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.
I have empathy for the owner whom had over $600,000 in damages with less than $300,000 in insurance recovery due to depreciation but find myself wondering whey they did not have replacement cost for their property insurance (or insurance to value at RC if there was a coinsurance penatly). Was it not offered, not available or rejected because it was a little more costly to insure @ 100% RC value? If the latter, why should the taxpayers pick up the tab for a poor business decsion? Not saying that was the reason but if it was?