| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
 Posted - 12/27/2002 : 14:45:50
|
Yoh - Bryan, 'inside', and Kile!
Can we hear from you again on this thread, regarding your comments about what the PLRB says or doesn't say regarding your comments about it - specifically where we can find the quotes you relied on, and that of what another HO3 may say that would affect coverage?
You brought your views to this thread, tying them to other documents. To bring closure to this thread, is it not fair to let others access where and in what context those other documents may relate to 'the claim' that is relative to this thread? |
 |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2002 : 11:13:57
|
Jim,
You are correct as you often are, the policy I was working with was a modified HO-3 and it provided up to $1000 per appliance for power surge not related to lightning. The carrier I worked for in North Carolina had a simmilar modification but it had no $1000 limit, it just excluded tubes and transistors. |
|
|
|
Cecelia
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 08:26:39
|
We have DAMAGE to an A/C unit. Listed under additional coverages is "Sudden and accidental damage from artificially generated electrical current." The policy also states that this peril does not include loss to a tube, transistor or similar electronic component.
It's covered. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 08:45:45
|
Cecelia: Please go back and reread the additional coverages policy provision which you quoted. And please read it in it's proper context subject to the severe limitations attached.
I think you will find that the policy language you quoted applies ONLY to "Landlord's Furnishings" (and ONLY) in an apartment on the "residence premises" (and ONLY) regularly rented or held for rental to others by an "insured". And then (ONLY) with a $2,500.00 limit.
That section's language does not open a window for non-lightning damage to the main residence electrical and HVAC systems from off-site power loss.
It would apply to a window a/c unit (ONLY in an onsite apartment)(and ONLY if "landlord furnished") but would NOT APPLY to an HVAC system serving the entire residence.
It's still not covered under the ISO HO-3 (unmodified) policy. |
Edited by - JimF on 12/30/2002 09:13:22 |
|
|
|
Cecelia
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 20:25:15
|
Jim's right. I was reading the wrong part of the policy. I should never try to delve into policy issues when I'm in the middle of a CAT.
BUT I can't help myself now. I pulled the only HO3 I have at hand (the Nationwide HO3). Under this North Carolina policy the damage from the power surge to A/C unit would be covered. This policy states that DAMAGE from a power outage is not covered. The DAMAGE was not caused by the power outage. The outage was one occurrence that did not cause damage. The power surge is another occurrence and it caused damage. There is no exclusion for power surge.
I also cheated a bit and, before posting this, had an intensive policy and coverage discussion with some of the Nationwide managers. Like I said, this is a company and a state specific policy. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 20:49:16
|
Cecelia, Thanks for your response.
Just to clear up one last thing, in your last paragraph you mention that this is a "company and STATE SPECIFIC policy".
Just for the record, the North Carolina ISO standard HO-3 does not cover damages from "power surge".
The Nationwide HO-3 is 'modified' and the modification is approved by the NC DOI to specifically include Nationwide's extensions of coverage. I would question your comment however that a power surge was not the result of an offsite power loss based on the "BUT-FOR" 'test'. (But for an offsite power loss there would not have been a power surge).
Many carrier personnel fold under pressure and concede coverage through a lack of policy understanding including 'intent', with the result that coverages are created de facto through ignorance.
That extension of coverage (power surge) does not apply to other carriers with unmodified policies nor to unmodified ISO HO-3 policies in North Carolina. (In other words it is STATE SPECIFIC only to Nationwide Insurance).
And I'll bet you a steak dinner on that! |
Edited by - JimF on 12/30/2002 20:55:55 |
|
|
|
Vince
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 08:16:55
|
Mr. Flint,
I work in North Carolina and I work for a large insurance company. I don't want anyone to know who I am so my name is not real.
You are wrong. All policies written in North Carolina are standard policies mandated by North Carolina Rate Bureau. All the policies are exactly alike. The only changes or modfications that can be added (or taken away) would be by endorsement which has to be approved by the NC Rate Bureau. Just give a call to Jim Long, the Insurance Commissioner. He signs all the policies. Our "man with the red tie". |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 09:38:37
|
Wow, won't this thread make for interesting reading later today?
But "Vince", ".... I don't want anyone to know who I am so my name is not real."
We have other people here like that, like the Bermuda Traingulin, whose anonimity is singular and whose style can not be replicated.
But "Vince", your User profile, shows 'you' as Vince & Jerry Tabor, of Sherman Texas; that's quite a drive to work for the Large Insurance Company Inc.
If you have a position on the wording in question or any other, why would you ".... not want anyone to know who I am"? I just still don't understand that, from you or anyone else; and perhaps more pointedly when you choose to debate coverage.
However, if "Vince Tabor" is not your real name, you have then taken what I thought was a real name of an adjuster.
A Vince Tabor used to be a regular contributor to CADO, I noted from the forum archives posts from a Vince Tabor from 01/27/00, 07/22/00, 08/24/00, 05/06/01 etc. Are you that same phantom personage?
I tried to find the real or phantom "Vince Tabor" in the Resumes section, but by picking "Desc" order I had no luck, but found my outdated blurp between an "Austin" and a "Harvey" and otherwise quite a jumbled order. Used to be we could click a 'letter' or 'state' and zero in to look for phantoms with resumes.
We don't tend to speak to strangers on the phone, well I do make the odd exception when 'Sick Sally' calls me a couple of times a year and wants to sexually harrass me, it would be a shame to turn her in. We don't let strangers into our homes, well I do make exceptions for the pizza delivery college girl who often looks better and smells better than my $20 pizza.
Oh well, this thread will bring some interesting reading when the rebuttal hits the waves. |
Edited by - CCarr on 01/03/2003 09:49:04 |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 10:13:32
|
Or...it could be that 'Vince' loaned his password to his cousin in North Carolina. Or...it could be that 'Vince' moved to North Carolina and got a haircut and a real job using his middle name at the carrier. Or...it could be that Mrs 'Vince' is making the post. The new year brings forth all kinds of possibilities.
But, more importantly, we need more lurid details about this pizza delivery college girl. For starters, did you get a detailed hand written statement? Did you make a scene diagram? Did you take an appropriate number of relevant photos? How about the police report? Did you interview the responding officer and fire department personnel? How about that title search to verify ownership and identity? And, was she scantily clad?
There is much to do to properly complete a claim file.
Ooops, I almost forgot. There is also that matter of canvassing the scene for witnesses and getting their statements, inspecting the damages and verifying their applicability to this incident, getting an aggreed price on repairs and a written statement from the shop on repair time. Coverage research is always a factor prior to commitment. Depreciation? Returning phonecalls? Your annual performance review? Your budget projections? YOUR PERSONAL HYGIENE IN THE OFFICE? YOUR COMPANY CAR? YOUR EXPENSE REPORTS? YOUR...YOUR...YOUR...
For those out there who still think there is glory in claims, the above out-of-control supervisory diatibe is intended as a jolt of reality. This is a mere part of the paying your dues in this business. Claims is NOT for everyone. It IS for those few eccentric souls whose calloused hides find solace in the more or less organized insanity of the trade of solving other peoples problems with a greenback poltice. |
Edited by - Ghostbuster on 01/03/2003 10:35:55 |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 10:18:28
|
I wonder if that includes flood policies, NFIP and WYOs.
Clayton my cheap cigar is burning my eyes send that pizza girl around.
I wouldn't use Vince, thats a real name.
Use DUH or HUH, thats not real: {its a joke so don't go off) |
Edited by - Newt on 01/03/2003 10:28:06 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 10:49:49
|
Memo to Vince Tabor or 'His' Identity 'Thief':
No Vince. I am not wrong on this issue.
And, Cecelia Sharpe is incorrect in her posted statements regarding power surge and/or off site coverage here in North Carolina, as you would be, if you're advocating her position taken, by implication.
While you are correct that un-modified HO policies are 'standard' with similar (though not exact wording), they are not approved nor mandated by the NC Rate Bureau, but by the North Carolina Department of Insurance, which has no connection whatsoever with the NCRB.
Misinterpretation of insurance policy language is still misinterpretation of an insurance policy, no matter which state you're from or working in or even which carrier is involved, North Carolina included.
Consciously or unconsciously, purposefully or otherwise, I suggest that either the adjuster, carrier or both is misapplying the HO-3 policy language and intent in North Carolina, under the DOI approved HO-3, anytime they are recommending or covering items for power surge damage under circumstances other than a small coverage extension for the "landlord's furnishings" provision. And the NC Department of Insurance concurs with that position.
The ISO HO-3 Homeowner's Policy as approved in North Carolina by the North Carolina Department of Insurance (Jim Long, Commissioner)
SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES coverage for:
(1) Off site power loss
AND
(2) Damages from power surge.
(Sources: (Phone conversation 01/03/2002-AM with Pam, (and 'Pam's supervisor), Homeowner's Consumer Specialist) Commissioner Jim Long's DOI Office (1-800-JIM-LONG). (Phone conversation 01/01/2003AM, NC Rate Bureau); Other resource materials)
The NCDOI does allow companies to EXTEND coverage which is more favorable to a consumer (read: insured) (but never less favorable) than the coverages MANDATED and APPROVED by the NC DOI under the approved ISO HO-3 policy.
Commissioner Long's Department was not aware that Nationwide Insurance (in Cecelia Sharpe's case) was either extending additional coverages beyond the approved basic HO-3 OR misinterpreting the coverage language (which they suggest DOES happen, by both adjusters AND carriers). But as long as such extension of coverage affords at least the coverage approved, there is no complaint with the NC DOI.
Vince, as you should know or be aware of, The NC Rate Bureau has no connection to the NC DOI whatsoever. And in fact, the NC Rate Bureau is an insurance lobbying group which serves the insurance industry by lobbying the Commissioner's Office for higher insurance premiums and rates. (A link to the NCRB is enclosed).
Vince, the NC Rate Bureau neither approves 'rates' nor 'forms' in North Carolina, which is the sole exclusive provenance of our 'man in the red tie' NC DOI Commissioner Jim Long and his DOI staff.
So, Vince Tabor, in conclusion, I stand by my earlier comments, and if you will review this post, and conduct the same research which I have, you will find that I was in fact CORRECT in my statements earlier made.
Vince, I assume you are here visiting in North Carolina working our recent ice storms, so WELCOME to the TARHEEL STATE and Enjoy your visit!
http://www.ncrb.org/ncrb/default.htm |
Edited by - JimF on 01/03/2003 13:26:13 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 11:16:42
|
And let me just say one more thing to the larger CADO audience of adjusters and readers:
When I post an opinion here on CADO, especially regarding policy or technical matters, I feel a responsibility to make sure my 'facts' are correct.
Many times, I may be 'reasonably sure' of the 'truth' or 'facts' of a position which I want to share or say, yet expend great effort in research to verify the positions I take, before posting them.
At times, the 'attitude' one might read into my post might therefore be read as somewhat cocky, confident or even arrogant.
My confidence in posting answers to technical and policy questions doesn't arise from my 'knowing it all' but rather from knowing where and how to get the 'facts'. And then going through what is sometimes a long laborious process of research to insure I am providing the most correct authentic up to date information to each of you as is possible.
As was the case this morning, that research often includes phone calls to the 'experts' and 'authorities' in the insurance field, so that you as well as I can get to reliable information, without both of us having to duplicate research efforts.
Rest assured, I learn as much as any of you simply by researching policy and technical questions, and like so many other wonderful researchers here (Clayton Carr instantly comes to mind), enjoy the scholastic approach as well.
In matters of objective statements, facts and information, I don't want or intend to be right or correct some of the time, a majority of the time, or even most of the time.
My personal goal and responsibility is to provide to you as well as my insureds, the best, most accurate, most up to date, verifiable information EACH and EVERY time.
Getting it right every time is called the TQM (Total Quality Management) or Zero Defects GOAL, and one which each of us should adopt as our personal goal in serving the insurance public with personal pride.
That is a responsibilty which I do not take lightly and which I will continue here on CADO as long as I ever post and make statements as to facts and relevant information.
I just thought you should know. |
Edited by - JimF on 01/03/2003 11:49:35 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 11:37:03
|
I never doubted that for a minute Big Fella.
You can only be confident if you've done the homework.
Read as 'cocky and arrogant', well, they are subjective visions by readers; sometimes contributed by 'bad hair' days of the writer and more times by the stubborness and jealousy of the reader. When all four of those human elements combine at once between two or more people - well we have seen the unpleasant results.
As good a time as any in the new year for all of 'us' to recognize our human fralities and the power of the written word and how its presentation can be misinterpreted. |
Edited by - CCarr on 01/03/2003 11:38:22 |
|
|
|
Vince
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 14:53:33
|
I am not Vince Tabor. I don't know who he is and I don't know how his identity got hooked up with the name I used. It is my grandaddy's middle name. That's all.
The reason I didn't write under my real name is that I have seen the replies that Mr. Flint puts on here. To me, they are really rude and uncalled for and sound like they are meant to make the person who disagrees with him sound stupid. A person can be wrong without being stupid. The way he writes sounds like he thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him is stupid and he always thinks he's right.
And when I read his response he accused me of being this person that I don't know. He "assumes" I am "visiting" here and sounds, to me, sarcastic in welcoming me to the tarheel state. I live here.
I've been reading here a long time. I will probably keep reading, but I will not post here again. It's this type of writing that discourages alot of people from commenting on some of the subjects. This is sad. It's hard to "share" knowledge and learn something when a grown man attacks people who disagree with him.
|
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 15:32:53
|
Vince, thanks for coming back, and I do mean that.
The reply or replies you would get to your posts, would be no different if you used your real name or your current 'handle'. It is still you the reader - regardless of the type of shield you erect - that will interpret the presentation of the post as well as the message in that post.
Lord nows, I have had my differences with Jim Flynt and vise versa - two confident, two stubborn individuals. However, I endure and depending on the day will forget or forgive; I have come to the conclusion before Jim's qualifying post today on this issue, that it is his writing style - something that is unique to each of us as we present written words. I am not critiquing it or supporting it, but I have come to accept it; and today understand it even better in a more conciliatory way.
However, to you Vince specifically, and as I always want to say to others like you who have made similar general comments - please do not go away. We need people, more people to express their views and supply their commentary. You have your shield of anonymity - which is just an unfortunate coincidence that it matches with what might be a real person with the same name - please do not penalize us with your silence.
I sincerely mean that to you and others that stay on the sidelines or in the shadows, for the reasons - specific or general - that you have stated (and I don't mean just Jim), or for any other reasons that suppress people from contributing.
Please Vince, try again. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Is it Covered?
Forum Locked
