| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
 Posted - 12/30/2002 : 09:17:11
|
Me again, and I'm looking for information again.
All the talk recently on another thread about 'good neighbours' and 'over the fence', has me wanting to get to the bottom of an issue; from 'up here' in the land of frozen fence posts.
Straightforward (I hope) claim - wind knocks fence down. The fence separates premises (normally) at the sides or rear.
I am sure you see, as I do, a new residential area being constructed with 'cookie cutter' homes; then wow by next year those former farmer fields are boxed all up with fences that make it look like a new stockyard. Normally, the new neighbours split the new fence construction costs; and now everyone is free to scratch themselves in the privacy of their own fenced yards.
Until I got exposed to the 'California rule' regarding fence claims, I was always left with an uncertain feeling that there was 'double dipping' going on; and without a 'rule' insurers were hard pressed to prevent it.
My understanding of the 'California fence rule' is that (when covered etc);
1. the total extent of damage is determined and estimated
2. the insured claimant is allowed 50% of the assessed damage
3. the insured claimant is only assessed 50% of their deductible
This, regardless of whether 'the neighbour' has applicable insurance?
This, in each case where a fence separates premises?
If I have a general understanding of the 'rule', is this;
(a) a state statute?
(b) an inter-carrier agreement regarding the disposition of fence claims?
(c) other principal behind its application?
The 'California rule' for fences does seem quite logical and fair to insureds (assuming both Tim and Mr. Wilson have applicable insurance) and insurers.
Why hasn't this approach been implemented nationwide? Some type of unique property law(s) in CA?
I'd like to float the concept up here, and put it on the table for discussion among my peers. Therefore, some help with my questions, and if there is any 'good bad or ugly' attached to this method, that I may not be aware of; I would appreciate hearing about it. |
|
|
tomgriffin56
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 13:39:22
|
When working a wind/hail storm in West Tx last year the carrier we were working for had us determine if the fence was constructed wholly by the PH or if it was a split venture. If co-owned;
1. figure half the replacement cost
2. assess the full deductible
When my brother went to CA and worked a wind storm around the Frisco area they applied the CA rule as you explained it. When he questioned them about it they stated it was because of the preponderence of split construction costs in CA, not an actual statue. In TX it isn't as commonplace.
Just my experiences with it. |
 |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 13:46:52
|
I think the difference is mostly political. Californians, being more left leaning, would tend to share fence building costs (socialists). Texans, being a bit more inclined to lean to the right tend to be a little more independent and build there own fences (good Americans). Heck, I've even seen two seperate wood fences along a rear property line between two houses with 3 inches of no man's land between them.
Before anyone goes off, this is merely a humorous post. Please take it as such. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 15:41:00
|
Seems there should be a joint tennant agreement for on line fences. The neighbor side of the fence is not on your premisis, therefore you could only insure what was on your premisis, therefore to insure you would have to have a joint agreement to simplify matters. Is there a provision for this that I don't know about?
The policies I have have no mention of any joint responsibility on this.
The California clause would be a statute, rule or regulation put forth by the state department of insurance. If the had been from a court case more states would have the same ruling.
An interesting observation, rules ,statutes and regulations usually run diametrically oposed to many law cases. Most are made from cases that were lost, because the law could not do what was considered right. The sad part is, what the court considered right may have been wrong. Thats why we have so many bad statutes.
Back on the subject, Jennifer may have this in her policies. Maybe when she slows down we'll hear from her. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 16:09:31
|
Newt, the answers I am looking for I do not believe are found in any standard policy wording; other than the fundamental application of 'insurable interest'.
I believe residential fencing is rarely constructed 'right on' a property line, and is more likely generally 1 foot or less either way.
Because of time and cost restraints applicable to claims handling, whether it be California or Iowa, carriers and the handling adjusters tend to assume that reported fence claims are made by the 'owner' of the fence. It just makes no sense (given the time and cost restraints of claims handling - from the carrier or handling adjuster perspective) to search the deed or survey map plan, or even try to find property line grid markers. I believe shared / split construction costs for fencing in high density residential neighbourhoods is common throughout North America.
I don't want to complicate the issue, I just want the specific questions I asked, to be answered.
Cecilia, where are you? |
Edited by - CCarr on 12/30/2002 16:10:20 |
|
|
|
Linda
USA
127 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 16:45:08
|
Clayton, in many sub-divisions the finished side of the fence is the owner's side. It is usually a few inches off the actual property line. In "developer" installed fencing which is on the property line, specifically wood privacy fencing, you usually see one run of fence with the posts exposed, thereby giving each homeowner partial ownership of the fence. The "post" exposed runs belongs to the neighbor. It does vary but not much.
|
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 17:01:58
|
Property rights here and in most states by law prevent any one from attaching to your fence if it is inside your property line, if they do and you say nothing then they own the land to the center of the fence by adverse possession in seven years. So, if the fence is attached to by the neighbor you wouldn't have to look for the boundry, the fence has become the boundry and he owns half of it.
Thats not my words, this came from my wife when I was putting up a quarter mile fence on this place, she is a realestate broker and clued me in. There are many cases in Texas where this has happened with lots of land envolved. |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 19:27:00
|
The shared fence issue is settled by state statute. I have a copy of the specific statute... but it is at home in FL.
Here is an interpretation of the statute:
CALIFORNIA “Good Neighbor”/"Community Fence" Rule
All fencing between 2 houses is shared and both neighbors are responsible for half. Possible exceptions:
- insd built their own fence on their side of the property next to the shared fence (there are 2 fences built on one run)
- insd can prove they built the fence inside their property line (at least 6 inches)
On a shared fence portion of the claim, we only pay for ½ the damages
If the claim is shared fence only, we only apply ½ the deductible
If we have a shared fence and ANY other damage (no matter how minor it is) we apply full deductible. Examples:
- solely owned gate
- roof m/c
- contents damage from the fence landing on it
Hope this answers your question. And if the insured homeowner says it is there fence but can provide no proof, sorry. ANd if the neighbor refuses to contribute their 50%, it is a civil matter that the insurance shouldn't be involved in.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2002 : 07:53:16
|
That statute would apply if the neighbor attaches to your fence even if inside your boundry. If you give consent or do not object him attaching his fence to yours , he then becomes half owner.
That don't seem fair but it is the law in most states. Look at the back corners and if the neighbor is attached then just like Jennifer says half the fence and the full deductable. Thats my story and MAYBE I'm sticking to it. California is ruled by blonds so who knows.:)
Lets not talk about hair because I don't have much to talk about. |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2002 : 09:07:34
|
| And all these work until the company storm manager says WE WILL DO IT THIS WAY! |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2002 : 11:39:50
|
I think you're right Mark this seems to be a practice instead of a applied science.
Like Doctors, they bury their mistakes and we put ours in front of GOD and everybody and hash them out. I like our system it doesn't involve death. Unless some irate insured goes Postal.:) |
|
|
|
pilot48
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2003 : 11:36:39
|
Leaving Calif. out of it for the moment, let me ask this. Fences are considered A.P.S., as such any settlement would be on an ACV basis, correct?
Don't most policies read something along the lines of "covered property on the insured premises"? If your house burns down while you were borrowing your neighbors t.v. set, the company pays for it, they don't tell you to have the neighbor file a claim under their own policy, why is a fence differant?
Doesn't the policy restrict settlements from being honored when the insured cites some state law or code that is in effect? How can they then limit/split coverage citing a law or code which the policy already has excluded from being a factor in a settlement? |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2003 : 12:20:59
|
| Pilot, just to muddy the waters, in Louisiana if you worked for State Farm after hurricane Lili you would have 3 different policies to worry about. The old homeowners standard policy, the old homeowners extra and the new homeowner's extra. If I remember correctly the old standard policy covered all fences ACV the old extra policy had all fences covered at RCV and the new extra policy covered wood fences at ACV and non-wood fences at RCV. It became fun to explain to insureds why their fence was covered ACV when they knew that their neibor got RC for his and even more fun was deciding what is a repair and what is a replacement. It's all part of the fun. |
|
|
|
Catmandale
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 19:42:13
|
From California Civil Code 841- regarding fences.
841. Coterminous owners are mutually bound equally to maintain: 1) The boundaries and monuments between them. 2) The fences between them, unless one of them chooses to let his land lie without fencing; in which case, if he afterwards encloses it, he must refund to the other a just proportion of the value, at that time, of any division fence made by the latter.
* 18 land burdens or servitudes were listed in this section. I did not include those that did not apply to the subject of this article.
There may be additional laws that address this topic, and I would appreciate hearing from you if you have more information. Now for the questions you can help me answer:
In daily use, it has been my practice to submit the whole fence if the insured can prove he paid the whole deal. If his fence is different than the neighbors, and he has a receipt or statement, its pretty easy.
Fences are a pain in the hindquarters for sure. |
"When we thought that we had all the answers,
suddenly all the questions changed."
Mario Benedetti (1920); Uruguayan writer.
|
|
|
|
canduss
USA
120 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 17:05:51
|
| Recently, 1 Insurance has directed the following when adjsuting fences in Cali.....of the damages found 1)calculate the linear foot damaged & allow only 1/2 of the linear foot to the common fence insured applying the Xactimate fence pricing without alteration 2) apply appropriate depreciation for replacement items only 3)apply the full deductible to the loss as per occurance....there is no State Statute applicable other than following Fair Claims Practice and although your thoughts are logical there is no inter-carrier agreements as we all know Carriers are subject to change their interpretations of the contract depending on many variables.......litigation comes to mind..... |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Fence claim "rules"?
Forum Locked
