Wow – I can’t believe Florida Peninsula Ins. Co would even take this case this far. They wrote a policy on RCV and didn’t take into account overhead and profit ? Did they think the contractor was going to work for free and charge wholesale cost on supplies?
FA – having just read about the “marring” case decision also in FL,
I can understand why insurers want to exercise as much
control as they can over claim payouts. Their problem most
often is poorly worded policy language, lack of definitions,
total absence of any reference to applicable case law, and a
failure to place themselves in the shoes of their customers
at claim time.
On the other side of the issue are policyholders who normally
don’t know their rights, some of whom are over reaching,
rather than greatful for what they have, some who would be
very happy with a patch on their tile floor if they were
paying for it themselves, but since “XYZ Ins. Co.” is paying,
we won’t settle for less than a whole new tile job for the
whole house. There may be some cases where the patch will
look really bad, just as with carpet, but a reasonable person
would say try the patch first, then if it fails the test, do
the rest.
Insurers are control freaks. They act like a little peeling paint
will cause your roof to blow off, or your gas line to explode – it won’t. A little deferred maintenance does not equate to neglect or a lack of pride in ownership. Insurers suggest that ACV is all
they owe a claimant until replacement is made. Well, if the contract is charging us for replacement coverage, then it would see, the FL Supreme Court got his right.
What we need it to fork it over on honest claims, and either refuse
payment or use a reservations of rights letter noticing the insured that the insurer intends to recover from them for any payments made that the insured turns out to not have been intitled to.
Awesome. This is a victory for the policyholder and even (to a lesser degree) the actual contractors. Both seem to be constantly taken advantage of by the insurance companies wielding their big “sledge hammer.”
“However, if overhead and profit are going to be “reasonable and necessary” to the repair, then the statute mandates their payment as replacement costs irrespective of whether they were incurred.”
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.
Wow – I can’t believe Florida Peninsula Ins. Co would even take this case this far. They wrote a policy on RCV and didn’t take into account overhead and profit ? Did they think the contractor was going to work for free and charge wholesale cost on supplies?
FA – having just read about the “marring” case decision also in FL,
I can understand why insurers want to exercise as much
control as they can over claim payouts. Their problem most
often is poorly worded policy language, lack of definitions,
total absence of any reference to applicable case law, and a
failure to place themselves in the shoes of their customers
at claim time.
On the other side of the issue are policyholders who normally
don’t know their rights, some of whom are over reaching,
rather than greatful for what they have, some who would be
very happy with a patch on their tile floor if they were
paying for it themselves, but since “XYZ Ins. Co.” is paying,
we won’t settle for less than a whole new tile job for the
whole house. There may be some cases where the patch will
look really bad, just as with carpet, but a reasonable person
would say try the patch first, then if it fails the test, do
the rest.
Insurers are control freaks. They act like a little peeling paint
will cause your roof to blow off, or your gas line to explode – it won’t. A little deferred maintenance does not equate to neglect or a lack of pride in ownership. Insurers suggest that ACV is all
they owe a claimant until replacement is made. Well, if the contract is charging us for replacement coverage, then it would see, the FL Supreme Court got his right.
What we need it to fork it over on honest claims, and either refuse
payment or use a reservations of rights letter noticing the insured that the insurer intends to recover from them for any payments made that the insured turns out to not have been intitled to.
Awesome. This is a victory for the policyholder and even (to a lesser degree) the actual contractors. Both seem to be constantly taken advantage of by the insurance companies wielding their big “sledge hammer.”
“However, if overhead and profit are going to be “reasonable and necessary” to the repair, then the statute mandates their payment as replacement costs irrespective of whether they were incurred.”
This probably sums it up.
James Northrup