| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Admin
547 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2002 : 22:29:38
|
Posted on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 11:32 am: Gil C. Newton
As I understand the insurance intent, the product which is insured, regardless of quality must be indemified, RCV,ACV or depreciation taken into account. What ever a person has is the best, in their mind. You are stepping on a rusty nail if you try to convince them otherwise.
Auto is an example, you try replacing a Chevy with a Ford or vice versa and you just may get beat up or shot. If you know that person and they value your opinion you may get by with a suggestion, but I never push a point.
It is amazing the diffrence in the quality of building materials and this is an area people will listen to suggestions if they have gained confidence in your judgement.
I am not trying to pass this off as insurance gospel, I am more illiterate than most in this field. I try only to express an opinion of what I understand and that only. My experience is
dealing with my own claims where the money came from my pocket. This ACV/RCV is my weakest point and I don't know any better way to get an understanding of it than listening to pros give it a thrashing. I hope someone out of the kindness of their heart will post some examples and actual figures for ACV and RCV .....
|
 |
|
|
Admin
547 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2002 : 22:30:26
|
Posted on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 12:15 pm: Gil C. Newton
Clayton, I started a post and got side-tracked then I came back and finished mine .In the mean time you had already posted your words of wisdom, and I mean that. I appreciate your comments and believe it or not it give me a whole new look at things. Sometimes you have to hear a different slant to get the message. I am
used to dealing with contracts and while studying, my instructors would mention now and again the policy being a contract. I see your point about being specific. I take your information as a boost up, and I will remember you for it. |
|
|
|
Admin
547 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2002 : 22:31:26
|
Posted on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 2:56 pm: Ghostbuster
Clayton, your last paragraph is bullseye. Loss control as well as claims and the agency force have been dismantled by the honchos in pursuit of reduced operating costs. Each quarter something else on the body of the company must be amputated to keep up this never ending cost cutting. As long as the money flows in and loss frequency remains moribund, as it has been this year, their party continues. Tomorrow??? Why, that may never come! Who cares about reality and being responsible and such obsolete trifles as profitible underwriting ratios? If a mold comes along, just double, triple, quadruple the rates. If they can't pay, they can't play.
Yeah, I'm feeling kinda sour right now. But, do any of you folks out there see things any different? Please tell me how things are better now for our industry than they were 30 years ago. Have I been watching too many episodes of 'Leave it to Beaver' and 'Gilligans Island' on TVLand? |
|
|
|
Straw
13 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2002 : 12:16:41
|
| I have recently joined CADO forums. I just reviewed this one and learned a lot. Thanks! 95% of my work is with RCV contracts, what little depreciation I do I use the carriers guidelines. Jim, Thanks for pointing out the non-recoverable depreciaton in the HO policy |
|
|
|
jcc1138
12 Posts |
Posted - 02/29/2004 : 18:51:07
|
An interesting discussion came up in the office about RCV and the 180 day rule that we quote to the insured as the timeline to notify us that the work is being done to get a time extension.
Did you know that the insured must affirmatively make claim for payment on an ACV basis for the 180 day rule to apply? Otherwise, the settlment will be paid at ACV (over $2,500) until the work is done, but the policy does not give a timeline on when that work has to be done (recent case in MD states that time to be unlimited, but then MD always goes its own way).
Take a look at the HO 00 03 10 00 policy under Section I-- Conditions, C- Loss Settlement, you will see this clause:
d. We will pay no more than the actual cash
value of the damage until actual repair or
replacement is complete. Once actual re-
pair or replacement is complete, we will
settle the loss as noted in 2.a. and b.
above.
However, if the cost to repair or replace the
damage is both:
(1) Less than 5% of the amount of insur-
ance in this policy on the building; and
(2) Less than $2,500;
we will settle the loss as noted in 2.a. and
b. above whether or not actual repair or
replacement is complete.
e. You may disregard the replacement cost
loss settlement provisions and make claim
under this policy for loss to buildings on an
actual cash value basis. You may then
make claim for any additional liability ac-
cording to the provisions of this Condition
C. Loss Settlement, provided you notify us
of your intent to do so within 180 days after
the date of loss.
So, unless your state has a different rule in its HO-300 or is a manuscript policy, you may pay ACV up front, but the insured doesn't have to notify within 180 days that they are doing the work |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"ACV Problem" in Insurance Policies"
Forum Locked
