I know this probably won’t work but, the US government should start deducting the damage values Americans are sustaining from Chinese made products out of the debt payments to China. It wouldn’t surprise me if the cumulative damages Americans have sustained is greater than the debt to China.
This defective Chinese Drywall problem, invading our real estate, coupled with hidden or obscure “gotcha” clauses in insurance policies allowing insurers to deny claims, has caused and will continue to cause serious financial loss and delay, unless fixed.
Where were the regulators when these defective materials were imported?
And, equally as important, where were the insurance regulators to prohibit this kind of exclusionary language to creep quietly into the insurance policies?
Under our current state-by-state insurance regulatory system in the US, even if one or two or more state insurance regulators are on the ball (many are) and even if that select group prohibited this type of “gotcha” denial language in the policies, that would not be enough.
There could still be many other state insurance regulators out there that would take no action, and who would allow these defective/deceptive insurance policies.
Bottom line — To be successful in your claim right now, you are still left to the luck of the draw, depending on the state that you are in. That shouldn’t be.
This Chinese Drywall situation is a prime example of the need for stronger product regulatory oversight and inspection, and a call for a uniform national insurance standard, with strong enforcement tools. Congress is considering this very concept now. It needs to be implemented.
I’m not sure why you would consider a form titled “Exclusion: Damage To Work Performed By Subcontractors On Your Behalf” (CG2294), a “gotcha” clause. It seems pretty obvious from the name of the exclusion what it excludes.
The purpose of General Liability insurance is to indemnify the insured for accidentally injuring someone or causing property damage. I assure you, that results in payments being made every day!
It is NOT the purpose or intent of the insurer to guarantee the quality of the workmanship. When you hire a roofer to put on a roof, if he accidentally breaks your window, fine, we’ll pay for it. But when your roof is simply of poor quality, we aren’t going to buy you a new one. Call your contractor!
General Liability insurance IS NOT A WARRANTY.
Trust me, you could not even afford to purchase GL insurance, if insurers had to guarantee the quality of everyone’s work. Do you understand this?
It’s not “hidden obscure gotcha clauses”, and it doesn’t “need to be fixed”. We aren’t going to become a warranty! Buy one, or hire a reputable contractor that stands behind his work.
I’m always amused by those who protest over the discussion of politics that inevitably creeps into our posts. This happens because our current government–from the federal to the smallest city level–is populated by people who see their job as injecting themselves into every nook and cranny of our lives. We live in an age where politics affects EVERYTHING. And if you don’t believe it, look at what our government wants to do to our health care/insurance system. They have ZERO business sticking their noses into this area of endeavor. They’re subsidizing the purchase of new cars to appease the environmentalists. So I hope you’ll forgive those of us who have the eyes to see. You keep living in your naive compartmentalized world.
Well, at least they were not covered with lead. While there will be certainly be lawsuits against the contractors, and subs, there will be another party joined in the suits. The brokers and agents are clear defendants in these suits. When the article discusses possible endorsements which could bring coverage back into the policy, the suit will allege that the agents should have known about these endorsements and offered them to the contractors. The failure to do so will be cited as negligence on the part of the agent to protect the contractor. The net will be cast wide and the agent will clearly be part of the catch.
Well, at least they were not covered with lead. While there will be certainly be lawsuits against the contractors, and subs, there will be another party joined in the suits. The brokers and agents are clear defendants in these suits. When the article discusses possible endorsements which could bring coverage back into the policy, the suit will allege that the agents should have known about these endorsements and offered them to the contractors. The failure to do so will be cited as negligence on the part of the agent to protect the contractor. The net will be cast wide and the agent will clearly be part of the catch.
I don’t understand your post. the reason for these “gotcha” clauses is so that the only claims paid are for those perils that are agreed upon in the underwriting. Actuarially sound rates must be based on the loss experience used to create those rates. If you want coverage for Chinese drywall, find a carrier that will agree to do so, along with an actuarially sound price. This is not “gotcha” but rather getting what you pay for; having a loss develop like this, or like asbestos, requires that the premium is based on an expectation of a probable loss. But most folks think that insurance should just pay everything no matter what the cause. On another point, why should anyone expect Congress to do anything but muck it all up, as they usually do when insurance is seens as being “unfair”; just look at the Florida property market and you’ll get a good idea of how political debate yields a “fair” premium base. NOT!
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 know this probably won’t work but, the US government should start deducting the damage values Americans are sustaining from Chinese made products out of the debt payments to China. It wouldn’t surprise me if the cumulative damages Americans have sustained is greater than the debt to China.
This defective Chinese Drywall problem, invading our real estate, coupled with hidden or obscure “gotcha” clauses in insurance policies allowing insurers to deny claims, has caused and will continue to cause serious financial loss and delay, unless fixed.
Where were the regulators when these defective materials were imported?
And, equally as important, where were the insurance regulators to prohibit this kind of exclusionary language to creep quietly into the insurance policies?
Under our current state-by-state insurance regulatory system in the US, even if one or two or more state insurance regulators are on the ball (many are) and even if that select group prohibited this type of “gotcha” denial language in the policies, that would not be enough.
There could still be many other state insurance regulators out there that would take no action, and who would allow these defective/deceptive insurance policies.
Bottom line — To be successful in your claim right now, you are still left to the luck of the draw, depending on the state that you are in. That shouldn’t be.
This Chinese Drywall situation is a prime example of the need for stronger product regulatory oversight and inspection, and a call for a uniform national insurance standard, with strong enforcement tools. Congress is considering this very concept now. It needs to be implemented.
I’m not sure why you would consider a form titled “Exclusion: Damage To Work Performed By Subcontractors On Your Behalf” (CG2294), a “gotcha” clause. It seems pretty obvious from the name of the exclusion what it excludes.
The judges might have upheld the flood exclusions, simply because the homeowner’s could pursue FEMA? Don’t know…just wondering.
Edge,
The purpose of General Liability insurance is to indemnify the insured for accidentally injuring someone or causing property damage. I assure you, that results in payments being made every day!
It is NOT the purpose or intent of the insurer to guarantee the quality of the workmanship. When you hire a roofer to put on a roof, if he accidentally breaks your window, fine, we’ll pay for it. But when your roof is simply of poor quality, we aren’t going to buy you a new one. Call your contractor!
General Liability insurance IS NOT A WARRANTY.
Trust me, you could not even afford to purchase GL insurance, if insurers had to guarantee the quality of everyone’s work. Do you understand this?
It’s not “hidden obscure gotcha clauses”, and it doesn’t “need to be fixed”. We aren’t going to become a warranty! Buy one, or hire a reputable contractor that stands behind his work.
I really don’t need more politics in these “insurance” discussions but I did enjoy the humor in Hyena’s posts. thanks for the laugh!
I’m always amused by those who protest over the discussion of politics that inevitably creeps into our posts. This happens because our current government–from the federal to the smallest city level–is populated by people who see their job as injecting themselves into every nook and cranny of our lives. We live in an age where politics affects EVERYTHING. And if you don’t believe it, look at what our government wants to do to our health care/insurance system. They have ZERO business sticking their noses into this area of endeavor. They’re subsidizing the purchase of new cars to appease the environmentalists. So I hope you’ll forgive those of us who have the eyes to see. You keep living in your naive compartmentalized world.
Well, at least they were not covered with lead. While there will be certainly be lawsuits against the contractors, and subs, there will be another party joined in the suits. The brokers and agents are clear defendants in these suits. When the article discusses possible endorsements which could bring coverage back into the policy, the suit will allege that the agents should have known about these endorsements and offered them to the contractors. The failure to do so will be cited as negligence on the part of the agent to protect the contractor. The net will be cast wide and the agent will clearly be part of the catch.
Well, at least they were not covered with lead. While there will be certainly be lawsuits against the contractors, and subs, there will be another party joined in the suits. The brokers and agents are clear defendants in these suits. When the article discusses possible endorsements which could bring coverage back into the policy, the suit will allege that the agents should have known about these endorsements and offered them to the contractors. The failure to do so will be cited as negligence on the part of the agent to protect the contractor. The net will be cast wide and the agent will clearly be part of the catch.
I don’t understand your post. the reason for these “gotcha” clauses is so that the only claims paid are for those perils that are agreed upon in the underwriting. Actuarially sound rates must be based on the loss experience used to create those rates. If you want coverage for Chinese drywall, find a carrier that will agree to do so, along with an actuarially sound price. This is not “gotcha” but rather getting what you pay for; having a loss develop like this, or like asbestos, requires that the premium is based on an expectation of a probable loss. But most folks think that insurance should just pay everything no matter what the cause. On another point, why should anyone expect Congress to do anything but muck it all up, as they usually do when insurance is seens as being “unfair”; just look at the Florida property market and you’ll get a good idea of how political debate yields a “fair” premium base. NOT!