Sorry to Maria, but if you buy replacement cost coverage you need to get replacement cost payment. It’s your business if you actually want to replace it whether it be personal or real property.
I beleive the replacement value clause states that the insured will be paid replacement value IF they repair the damage. If they decide not to repair the damage, they get ACV.
Mr Solvent is it not the responsibility for the insurance company to put the insured in the same financial position before the loss . Since when is are insurance claims a for profit business.
in fact insurance is supposed to indemnify, back to the value as of the date of loss. now some folks have their value of the premium based on cost new to rebuild. some do not have that option.
Has any one read the endorsement? ( 2. C of endorsement says; We will pay no more then ACV of the damage until actual repair or replace is completed.)
It’s in plain english.
Food for thought…
Florida is a valued policy state. If a structure is a total loss, the amount insured for is the amount considered to be the value of the structure at the time of the loss – and is payable in full.
In most states, any policy provision inconsistent with the valued policy law is considered null and void.
If Fl state law says something different then the policy/endorsement. Then why not sue the State of Fl for letting Hartford have such an endorsement. If endorsement is null then insured has paid a endorse prem for nothing. Maybe sue the agent also for adding a null endorsement. Better yet sue the insured for not reading the policy as it says on front pg read policy in its entirety. If thats the case why have the endorsement at all. I say the lawyer has his hands full with this one. If he wins (if). Nobody will take anything in their policies serious. Thats the whole point of endorsements & policies. The wording is the for a reason.
This article comes with interesting timing since I am currently in a situation of trying to resolve a personal RCV claim with this company. Your comments are appreciated! And, they want to receive all receipts from my GC before they will release a final check.
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.
Sorry to Maria, but if you buy replacement cost coverage you need to get replacement cost payment. It’s your business if you actually want to replace it whether it be personal or real property.
So, if the insured decides to pocket the $$$ instead of making repairs – should Hartford be obligated to renew the policy?
And people are wondering why they are getting out of the homeowners business.
I beleive the replacement value clause states that the insured will be paid replacement value IF they repair the damage. If they decide not to repair the damage, they get ACV.
Mr Solvent is it not the responsibility for the insurance company to put the insured in the same financial position before the loss . Since when is are insurance claims a for profit business.
in fact insurance is supposed to indemnify, back to the value as of the date of loss. now some folks have their value of the premium based on cost new to rebuild. some do not have that option.
Has any one read the endorsement? ( 2. C of endorsement says; We will pay no more then ACV of the damage until actual repair or replace is completed.)
It’s in plain english.
I wish I had said that.
Food for thought…
Florida is a valued policy state. If a structure is a total loss, the amount insured for is the amount considered to be the value of the structure at the time of the loss – and is payable in full.
In most states, any policy provision inconsistent with the valued policy law is considered null and void.
If Fl state law says something different then the policy/endorsement. Then why not sue the State of Fl for letting Hartford have such an endorsement. If endorsement is null then insured has paid a endorse prem for nothing. Maybe sue the agent also for adding a null endorsement. Better yet sue the insured for not reading the policy as it says on front pg read policy in its entirety. If thats the case why have the endorsement at all. I say the lawyer has his hands full with this one. If he wins (if). Nobody will take anything in their policies serious. Thats the whole point of endorsements & policies. The wording is the for a reason.
This article comes with interesting timing since I am currently in a situation of trying to resolve a personal RCV claim with this company. Your comments are appreciated! And, they want to receive all receipts from my GC before they will release a final check.