According to one of the postings here, someone looked up the law and it unequivocally says replacement cost only. No ACV allowed. You might show that to the adjuster.
And most contractors are willing to work with you if you have insurance.
REGARDING YOUR PREVIOUS MESSAGE POSTED BELOW,
________________________________________
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?
________________________________________
I’M NOT YELLING, I’M DIFFERENTIATING MY COPY FROM YOURS (THIS FORMAT WON’T LET ME CHANGE FONT STYLE OR COLOR). MY POINT IS THE NEW STATUTE FORCES THE INSURER TO PAY RCV IMMEDIATELY, WHETHER OR NOT THE INSURED CHOOSES TO REPLACE. SO THE INSURER DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE SURE THE WORK IS COMPLETE AND PAID FOR ANY LONGER. NEW RULES, LAW TRUMPS POLICY LANGUAGE.
FL Statute 627.7011 Homeowners’ policies; offer of replacement cost coverage and law and ordinance coverage.–
(1) Prior to issuing a homeowner’s insurance policy on or after October 1, 2005, or prior to the first renewal of a homeowner’s insurance policy on or after October 1, 2005, the insurer must offer each of the following:
(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.
That, folks, is the law. I would love also to force Hartford to comply. But then, why shouldn’t a man who gets paid to replace his roof be in the position to replace his roof? So let’s say Joe gets the money to replace his 40K roof and he buys a boat instead. Next storm takes off his entire roof structure. He’ll be calling the ins. co. to replace but without receipts of his roof replacement, the ins. co. doesn’t owe for the other repairs. So he loses the house and contents and walks away empty handed because he did the wrong thing last time.
No, if you get paid for a roof, replace the roof! I’m a PA and I know this much!
If I’m reading the law correctly, the only policies that this law applies to in regards to Wilma are those issued on or after October 1, 2005. This would be a minority (probably around 10 percent) of the policies Hartford had in affect on the day Wilma struck.
Icee, this is true, yet that was when the law was put into effect. I don’t make the rules, just live by them. I used to fight this issue hard, but they are allowed to do this. Also, only a Public Adjuster can supercede the 180 day time limit imposed per policy language to do the work and draw the depreciation.
Question for Gary; if an Insurer is obligated to pay replacement cost and the Insd decides to be his own GC for the repairs, is there anything wrong with the Insd keeping the balance as his fee – as long as the RC amount is determined fair and reasonable?
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.
PJ, please turn off the all caps. It is rather hard on the eyes, and is considered yelling in internet language.
Thanks
According to one of the postings here, someone looked up the law and it unequivocally says replacement cost only. No ACV allowed. You might show that to the adjuster.
And most contractors are willing to work with you if you have insurance.
Good luck.
No, PJ, the REAL question is what part of my 6:49 pm e mail do YOU not understand?
Thanks, Temblor.
He IS yelling!
TEMBLOR:
REGARDING YOUR PREVIOUS MESSAGE POSTED BELOW,
________________________________________
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?
________________________________________
I’M NOT YELLING, I’M DIFFERENTIATING MY COPY FROM YOURS (THIS FORMAT WON’T LET ME CHANGE FONT STYLE OR COLOR). MY POINT IS THE NEW STATUTE FORCES THE INSURER TO PAY RCV IMMEDIATELY, WHETHER OR NOT THE INSURED CHOOSES TO REPLACE. SO THE INSURER DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE SURE THE WORK IS COMPLETE AND PAID FOR ANY LONGER. NEW RULES, LAW TRUMPS POLICY LANGUAGE.
FL Statute 627.7011 Homeowners’ policies; offer of replacement cost coverage and law and ordinance coverage.–
(1) Prior to issuing a homeowner’s insurance policy on or after October 1, 2005, or prior to the first renewal of a homeowner’s insurance policy on or after October 1, 2005, the insurer must offer each of the following:
(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.
That, folks, is the law. I would love also to force Hartford to comply. But then, why shouldn’t a man who gets paid to replace his roof be in the position to replace his roof? So let’s say Joe gets the money to replace his 40K roof and he buys a boat instead. Next storm takes off his entire roof structure. He’ll be calling the ins. co. to replace but without receipts of his roof replacement, the ins. co. doesn’t owe for the other repairs. So he loses the house and contents and walks away empty handed because he did the wrong thing last time.
No, if you get paid for a roof, replace the roof! I’m a PA and I know this much!
If I’m reading the law correctly, the only policies that this law applies to in regards to Wilma are those issued on or after October 1, 2005. This would be a minority (probably around 10 percent) of the policies Hartford had in affect on the day Wilma struck.
Icee, this is true, yet that was when the law was put into effect. I don’t make the rules, just live by them. I used to fight this issue hard, but they are allowed to do this. Also, only a Public Adjuster can supercede the 180 day time limit imposed per policy language to do the work and draw the depreciation.
Question for Gary; if an Insurer is obligated to pay replacement cost and the Insd decides to be his own GC for the repairs, is there anything wrong with the Insd keeping the balance as his fee – as long as the RC amount is determined fair and reasonable?