Connecticut Homeowners Dispute With Insurers Hinges on Definition of Collapse

By DAVE COLLINS | July 10, 2017

  • July 10, 2017 at 3:29 pm
    wayne smith says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 3

    Ah, they want the govt to step in and pay for their problems. Why should other homeowners pay for their problems and be their quasi-insurance company?

    • July 22, 2017 at 10:27 am
      Frank A. Lombard CPCU ARM says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Because their home insurance policy(and yours) specifically states damage caused by ” defective material” won’t be covered but other damage which ensues is.

      The policy also implies the insurer will reimburse homeowners for reasonable steps they have to take to protect their property from further damage, like raising the structure so the defective material can be replaced.

      Shouldn’t insurance companies be required to honor their policy terms? Or are these impacted homeowners expecting too much?

  • July 15, 2017 at 10:26 am
    Frank A. Lombard CPCU ARM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    I suggest the home insurers may not be responsible for the “defective foundations” but most policies appear to include coverage for “ensuing” or resulting damage to the rest of the home’s structure, all these homes have resulting damage.

    In addition, policyholders are required to take “reasonable steps” to protect their property from further damage. To me, that could include the cost to raise the structure so the defective foundation can be replaced. Resulting damage and the cost to raise the structure represent the major portion of the cost to repair these homes.

    Why aren’t these policy provisions part of the discussion? Homeowners aren’t looking for a free ride, they are looking to be treated fairly by the insurance industry.

  • July 19, 2017 at 3:09 pm
    Truth says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    What insured’s want is not always from a covered peril. They want a maintenance policy. A “cover everything, whatever, policy. I would surmise that only one in a thousand ever reads or even reviews their policy. All they here is “all-risk” and not what follow’s, “EXCEPT AS EXCLUDED”!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*