There have been virtually no total losses from hurricanes in this state. Wilma produced most of the losses in this decade and it wasn’t nearly strong enough to total the vast majority of houses, so we’re talking partial losses here, not total losses.
The policy clearly states that in a loss the recovery is depreciated value (ACV) unless the damage is repaired. Depreciated value is considered making the insured whole as they have “used up” part of the property at the time of the loss.
Replacement cost is a bonus.
Has anyone researched the state law to determine if insurers are indeed required by state law to pay replacement cost on partial losses even if repairs are not done? I think they will find that the valued policy law does not apply to partial losses, only total losses.
The wording for replacement cost only if repairs are done is boilerplate language, in every property insurance policy, Florida and elsewhere. It has been approved for use by all insurers by the State Insurance Departments of every state.
Sorry, Victim, that’s standard procedure. They have the right to make sure the work has been done, and paid for, before they pay the difference between RC and ACV. Why do you have a problem with that?
WHAT PART OF “the insurer shall pay the replacement cost without reservation or holdback of any depreciation in value, whether or not the insured replaces or repairs the dwelling or property.” DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND TEMBLOR?
THE GAME CHANGED, AS BOB POSTED, ON OCTOBER 1, 2005.
SORRY MARIA, THAT INSUREDS WHO TRUST THEIR INSURANCE COMPANIES TO INDEMNIFY THEM, AS THEIR CONTRACT STATES, DON’T DO WHAT THEIR SUPPOSED TO. THAT’S EXACTLY WHY WE NEED ATTORNEYS. IF THEY ACT LIKE THIS WITH ATTORNEYS PRESENT, CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW THEY’LL ACT WITH NO UMPIRES TO CALL BALLS & STRIKES?
FL ST: 627.7011 states: (3) In the event of a loss for which a dwelling or personal property is insured on the basis of replacement costs, the insurer shall pay the replacement cost without reservation or holdback of any depreciation in value, whether or not the insured replaces or repairs the dwelling or property.
Temblor, I have no problem with a reasonable replacement cost value of the damages. And, I had no problem with accepting the ACV amount until the job was completed – although now I’m wondering why I shouldn’t just get the RCV up front. Honestly, I think my mortgage company will be more interested in whether I complete the repairs or not, which I have no problem doing since I am ready to get my home back to the condition it was. However, I cannot hire a contractor to do the work until I can commit to paying them. That’s why I bought insurance. I cannot afford to complete the repairs without insurance. So you tell me, who is breaching a contract here??
Only as regards the valued policy law, in Texas, it only applies to FIRE. I even had one of the sevice reps. at the TDI tell me Texas had no valued policy law but I proved her wrong, hee, hee. Loved it.
Well, being in this great state, if Hartford did infact pull this off they deserve the suit, but if they paid as required by valued policy law, then hartford should file a suit against the Atty, but there is another company in this state that does this, They pull reinspections and if the insured has not completed repairs, or is in the process of doing the work they ask the adjuster to rewrite the loss, I know this because I refused to rewrite my sheet, I am thinking of going P/A because of this crap
well, what if they decided to sell the property and not rebuild, the money is their’s anyway! they may have decided to move elsewhere and use that money to build a new home. so they should be sued!
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.
There have been virtually no total losses from hurricanes in this state. Wilma produced most of the losses in this decade and it wasn’t nearly strong enough to total the vast majority of houses, so we’re talking partial losses here, not total losses.
The policy clearly states that in a loss the recovery is depreciated value (ACV) unless the damage is repaired. Depreciated value is considered making the insured whole as they have “used up” part of the property at the time of the loss.
Replacement cost is a bonus.
Has anyone researched the state law to determine if insurers are indeed required by state law to pay replacement cost on partial losses even if repairs are not done? I think they will find that the valued policy law does not apply to partial losses, only total losses.
The wording for replacement cost only if repairs are done is boilerplate language, in every property insurance policy, Florida and elsewhere. It has been approved for use by all insurers by the State Insurance Departments of every state.
Sorry, Victim, that’s standard procedure. They have the right to make sure the work has been done, and paid for, before they pay the difference between RC and ACV. Why do you have a problem with that?
Good, Robert looked up the law.
WHAT PART OF “the insurer shall pay the replacement cost without reservation or holdback of any depreciation in value, whether or not the insured replaces or repairs the dwelling or property.” DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND TEMBLOR?
THE GAME CHANGED, AS BOB POSTED, ON OCTOBER 1, 2005.
SORRY MARIA, THAT INSUREDS WHO TRUST THEIR INSURANCE COMPANIES TO INDEMNIFY THEM, AS THEIR CONTRACT STATES, DON’T DO WHAT THEIR SUPPOSED TO. THAT’S EXACTLY WHY WE NEED ATTORNEYS. IF THEY ACT LIKE THIS WITH ATTORNEYS PRESENT, CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW THEY’LL ACT WITH NO UMPIRES TO CALL BALLS & STRIKES?
FL ST: 627.7011 states: (3) In the event of a loss for which a dwelling or personal property is insured on the basis of replacement costs, the insurer shall pay the replacement cost without reservation or holdback of any depreciation in value, whether or not the insured replaces or repairs the dwelling or property.
Temblor, I have no problem with a reasonable replacement cost value of the damages. And, I had no problem with accepting the ACV amount until the job was completed – although now I’m wondering why I shouldn’t just get the RCV up front. Honestly, I think my mortgage company will be more interested in whether I complete the repairs or not, which I have no problem doing since I am ready to get my home back to the condition it was. However, I cannot hire a contractor to do the work until I can commit to paying them. That’s why I bought insurance. I cannot afford to complete the repairs without insurance. So you tell me, who is breaching a contract here??
Only as regards the valued policy law, in Texas, it only applies to FIRE. I even had one of the sevice reps. at the TDI tell me Texas had no valued policy law but I proved her wrong, hee, hee. Loved it.
Obama do not regulate the healthcare system Please Please REGULATE the lawyers that have this country turned upside down !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, being in this great state, if Hartford did infact pull this off they deserve the suit, but if they paid as required by valued policy law, then hartford should file a suit against the Atty, but there is another company in this state that does this, They pull reinspections and if the insured has not completed repairs, or is in the process of doing the work they ask the adjuster to rewrite the loss, I know this because I refused to rewrite my sheet, I am thinking of going P/A because of this crap
well, what if they decided to sell the property and not rebuild, the money is their’s anyway! they may have decided to move elsewhere and use that money to build a new home. so they should be sued!