Cal. Ins. Commissioner Steve Poizner seems to have been walking around in a daze when it comes to homeowners claims handling procedures. His ideas are so laughable because he sounds as if he just discovered the moon.
Additional Living Expense coverage is available for “actual expenses incurred” to return the Insured to the condition he/she enjoyed before the loss. Some policyholder’s homes, that were completely destroyed, have been known to permanently resettle into a new home within 30 days after the loss. So, has the company overpaid by 3 months in that case? It has overpaid under the Poizner payment ideas.
Insurance companies, for decades, have been advancing payments sufficient to cover immediate ALE expenses and immediate personal property replacements as an overall advance payment which is deducted from the total amount of the claim at the end of the process. There’s nothing new here, other than an explanation that the homeowner is not going to be paid for 4 months ALE for only 1 month actual expense incurred. This type of advance payment allows the homeowner to spend as he wishes or needs at the time of immediate needs.
Companies already make advance payments, as the needs arise, even if it takes 6 months to a year or more to rebuild.
Poizner’s proposal of paying 25% of policy limits for a total loss of “standard contents” is nothing new. I can see a company paying 50% with the property documentation, i.e. photos and other means of total loss confirmation. This is a reasonable advance payment which has been practiced by reputable companies for decades.
“Proof of Claim”??? Current California law requires acceptance or denial of claim within 40 days following proof of claim, etc. Most all property insurance companies have tailered their homeowners policy after the old New York Standard Fire Insurance Policy terms and conditions established in the 19th century providing 60 days for acceptance or denial of a “Sworn Statement in Proof Of Loss” (proof of claim referred to in the article). Except the Cal.law shortens the time to 40 days (according to the article) for establishing the amount of damages (that would have to hold up to a critical review in any court of law if there is a dispute over the amount of damages.)
Has the Commissioner not heard of policyholders filing a change of address form with their local post office after a total fire loss, for forwarding of their mail, including premium notices? Duh! Don’tcha know that the insurance companies already know the postal zip codes of all those total losses?
Poizner’s call for an expedited pre-negotiated debris removal contracts seems to be whistleing in the wind. This is like determining how badly the wind or hail damage is going to be next week or next year. Sheesh!
Lastly, there appears to be no logic to Poizer’s requests for any form of personal property inventory forms other than “company-specific” PPI forms. Most policies require that PPI listings require only that specific information for each item, sufficiently to arrive at the depreciated value be provided, not necessarily on a prescribed format. A lump sum of “100 DVD’s” is not unreasonable, but how about the average policyholder who claims a loss of 1,100 DVD’s in a home of nominal value? The company would expect (and are entitled to) an itemized listing by name, title, etc of that many DVD’S, rightfully so. Each claim stands on its own merits, Mr. Poizner.
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.
Cal. Ins. Commissioner Steve Poizner seems to have been walking around in a daze when it comes to homeowners claims handling procedures. His ideas are so laughable because he sounds as if he just discovered the moon.
Additional Living Expense coverage is available for “actual expenses incurred” to return the Insured to the condition he/she enjoyed before the loss. Some policyholder’s homes, that were completely destroyed, have been known to permanently resettle into a new home within 30 days after the loss. So, has the company overpaid by 3 months in that case? It has overpaid under the Poizner payment ideas.
Insurance companies, for decades, have been advancing payments sufficient to cover immediate ALE expenses and immediate personal property replacements as an overall advance payment which is deducted from the total amount of the claim at the end of the process. There’s nothing new here, other than an explanation that the homeowner is not going to be paid for 4 months ALE for only 1 month actual expense incurred. This type of advance payment allows the homeowner to spend as he wishes or needs at the time of immediate needs.
Companies already make advance payments, as the needs arise, even if it takes 6 months to a year or more to rebuild.
Poizner’s proposal of paying 25% of policy limits for a total loss of “standard contents” is nothing new. I can see a company paying 50% with the property documentation, i.e. photos and other means of total loss confirmation. This is a reasonable advance payment which has been practiced by reputable companies for decades.
“Proof of Claim”??? Current California law requires acceptance or denial of claim within 40 days following proof of claim, etc. Most all property insurance companies have tailered their homeowners policy after the old New York Standard Fire Insurance Policy terms and conditions established in the 19th century providing 60 days for acceptance or denial of a “Sworn Statement in Proof Of Loss” (proof of claim referred to in the article). Except the Cal.law shortens the time to 40 days (according to the article) for establishing the amount of damages (that would have to hold up to a critical review in any court of law if there is a dispute over the amount of damages.)
Has the Commissioner not heard of policyholders filing a change of address form with their local post office after a total fire loss, for forwarding of their mail, including premium notices? Duh! Don’tcha know that the insurance companies already know the postal zip codes of all those total losses?
Poizner’s call for an expedited pre-negotiated debris removal contracts seems to be whistleing in the wind. This is like determining how badly the wind or hail damage is going to be next week or next year. Sheesh!
Lastly, there appears to be no logic to Poizer’s requests for any form of personal property inventory forms other than “company-specific” PPI forms. Most policies require that PPI listings require only that specific information for each item, sufficiently to arrive at the depreciated value be provided, not necessarily on a prescribed format. A lump sum of “100 DVD’s” is not unreasonable, but how about the average policyholder who claims a loss of 1,100 DVD’s in a home of nominal value? The company would expect (and are entitled to) an itemized listing by name, title, etc of that many DVD’S, rightfully so. Each claim stands on its own merits, Mr. Poizner.