| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2003 : 00:56:08
|
Ok Kile, I am with you in agreement until we arrive at your last two paragraphs as follows:
"Now, you said that you believe that DV will be an issue for the courts in the next several years. On this I can agree with you. So far I think we are all in agreement.
Now, the problem comes in when the new can of worms is opened. Would you not agree that if the courts ruled that under the current HO policies granular loss due to hail is a covered DV loss claim under the current HO policy, then any granular loss, due to a loss not excluded, which would include 2 feet of rain in 48 hours, would therefore be covered, would it not?"
I disagree somewhat with regard to the first paragraph above, in that dimunition of loss is already an established concept under insurance and real property law and has been litigated as evidenced by existing case law.
Dimunition of value cases have already been heard by the courts and carriers required to pay for dimunition of value when causation is covered by policy.
We disagree in your last paragraph above in the sense that you want to singularly focus on rain as a causation event, while my focus is on the much broader principle already accepted and acknowledged by the courts that insurers owe for damages when those damages are covered under policy provisions where there are no exclusions or limitations to coverage.
And I acknowledge, accept and embrace the unambiguous position which Clayton has so clearly as well as eloquently outlined which proffers that granular loss is not excluded from coverage by the current ISO HO policy wording.
We disagree with your last paragraph as well for the simple reason you are arguing or trying to argue that granular loss alone is enough to meet a threshold for indeminification whereas, Bill, Clayton and I do not agree with that position.
Let's be real clear here: It is YOU and not us who is arguing that granular loss ALONE should have an effect or be the determinative factor in a dimunition of value; whether you would argue granular loss from rain, hail or bird droppings.
Bill, Clayton and I would argue simply that granular loss MAY be indicative of shingle DAMAGE and economic loss.
We would argue as well that granular loss MAY diminish value of a roof.
And we would argue that granular loss MAY (under some circumstances) be COMPENSATORY under the homeowners insurance contract.
Finally, we disagree in your last paragraph in that you would ask us to make assumptions based on an ability to predict how a court might rule under one legal scenario based on a prior ruling under similar yet very different legal scenarios. We're good but we're not THAT good and doubtless no one else is either.
Whatever other conclusions you arrive at from misunderstanding or misinterpreting of the positions and statements made by Bill, Clayton and I through your own logic or any other means is your sole perogative and provenance, for which we are dispassionately ambivalent.
I hope this helps to ease your understanding. |
Edited by - JimF on 03/12/2003 10:39:55 |
 |
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 08:31:15
|
A granule is knocked off a shingle with no damage to the mat and no other collateral damage. What is the difference whether it is done by rain or hail?
Jim, you said the difference in Kile's scenario is that hail is a covered peril and rain is not. Is the difference to you just whether it is a loss you can bill for it or not? Earlier you called it the DV "approach". I think "con" would be more like it.
Newsflash! Everyone welcome in this new legal position into our industry much like you did mold, looking for the big payday. When carriers have to steamline to survive another situation like Texas, who do you think they will kick to the street first to cut their overhead? Walk down the hall, turn left, walk to the sink, and look in the mirror! Ya might want to beat the rush now and pick up that Walmart application the next time you're in town.
Keep feeding the masses with your Pelican Brief. It all sounds real interesting. I WILL miss some of you.
Have a good day!
|
Edited by - CatDaddy on 03/12/2003 08:32:39 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 08:49:10
|
Cat Daddy, you are the one who initiated this thread, and you are the one who asked for opinions on the question. I assumed then, obviously quite incorrectly, that your invitation to share might even include requests for opinions alien to your own.
I could care less whether you like my opinion, understand my opinion, or listen to opinions which I shared at your request.
More interestingly will be whether you listen and heed the opinions of the court.
I don't make the rules which courts insist adjusters and carriers be guided by, I merely report them.
Don't kill the messengers when you don't like the message, and don't ask questions for which you seem unwilling to hear answers different from your own. |
Edited by - JimF on 03/12/2003 09:54:33 |
|
|
|
mshort68
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 08:53:36
|
| What court case considered diminished value on shingles? I haven't heard about it, could you elaborate. Shingles are not cars, get your facts straight Jim! |
The grass is always greener on the other side, but it still has to be mowed! |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 08:58:39
|
Dimunition of value is well established under case law in both real property and insurance, and no, case law for dimunition is not limited to automobiles (wherever and however you arrived at that conclusion).
Do a little research into case law for insurance and property yourself, and you might discover what we are saying.
Please rest assured I have done my research as I always do, and I have the facts straight. |
Edited by - JimF on 03/12/2003 09:01:29 |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 09:24:33
|
Jim the court reporter, please quote the court opinions on DV concerning homeowners claims and granule loss.
Also, please address my questions in my post prior to yours.
I do not mind opinions. I think everyone should have one and are entitled to it. I mind angles and selfish money making ideas that cost companies billions while other sit back thinking they are gonna get rich off of it.
And I dont kill messengers. If I did, some folks doorbells would already be ringing.
And this is just MY opinion. |
Edited by - CatDaddy on 03/12/2003 09:25:52 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 09:38:16
|
Cat Daddy, I assume you have access to the same case law research resources that I do, and you have the same opportunity to do your own research and agree or disagree with what your research reveals.
I learned a long time ago that education in any subject is eased by having an open mind and a willingness to listen to opinions and experiences alien to my own.
Do whatever research you want or none at all.
Believe what you read or ignore it, chastising sources as you disagree.
Adopt and maintain the habit of making fun of and attacking personally those who's views differ from your own and remain oblivious to change around you.
Seek awareness of the trends ahead or stay with the comforts of life as you know it.
The paths ahead are as clearly individual as they are treacherous, and only through an individual's research and initiatives in understanding can one be adequately armed to make the tough decisions in choosing among difficult personal paths to follow.
Change comes whether we, you or I like it or not.
My case on the topic is rested.
The rest is up to the decisions of the courts and to the decisions you elect to choose in either following or ignoring them.
Good Luck. |
Edited by - JimF on 03/12/2003 10:46:23 |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 11:50:11
|
What court decisions? I asked you a direct question and I get "changes comes whether we like it or not" and "seek awareness of trends blah blah". Atleast you havent changed.
And Jim, I am not making fun of you. I am asking you questions while stating MY opinion about the DV issue. And certainly this has nothing to do with you. You are reporting things you say you've read. A source, no. I would not expect you to be personally involved. So if you took it personally, that was your choice. As you say so much, I really dont care.
Paint it however you would like. Do you really think most people care if DV is a coverage issue for the insured? Please dont be that stupid and pretend I am too. People want to make it an issue so that they can profit from it. How many cats have you worked and you refused your paycheck because YOU just do it 'cuz you love it and care about people. LOL!
Please! Sell crazy somewhere else. |
Edited by - CatDaddy on 03/12/2003 11:53:34 |
|
|
|
Linda
USA
127 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2003 : 01:05:04
|
After now reading approximately 4 pages of some very excellent posts and some not so great; I have now forgotten who in the previous pages felt we, as adjusters, should provide the Insureds a copy of the Haag book on composition shingles. Sounds great but who is going to pay the approximately $40 for each one including freight, give or take a dollar or two? Not me. I will show them from my copy but there will never be a day when I furnish them a copy to keep, show their roofer, contractor, etc. One that actually has better photographs and used to be free (I'm assuming still is if it is in print), was one from Owens Corning addressing these same issues. The conclusions from Owens Corning is exactly the same as Haag.
I am not trying to "put down" the person who suggested this, only to make them aware of the cost of these books. All of the material in Haag's books is copyrighted so I don't advised anyone to attempt to copy them.
This is a great thread. I wish we could have more like this.
Hope to see you all at the CADO Convention!
|
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2003 : 09:17:52
|
| For the fine souls that toil for the Big Red Machine, they put out a pamphlet that touches on the various kinds of roof damage that is and is not covered. It's not only free, but encouraged to be handed out to the Insureds. |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2003 : 09:51:15
|
| Ya cant beat free! |
|
|
|
mgkmrp
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2003 : 14:00:07
|
i agree with the diminuation of useful life and loss of economic value to the insured property. in the case of loss of granule or loss of life caused by the the hail event, an adjuster is operating in grey area like it or not. It is our job to equate the loss to many factors according to the individual circumstance of that loss and the policy-be fair and close the claim.
---i have endured the learning curve to a certain point-i still wrestle with the parameters of this one from time to time on certain losses. i can say though, without be able to put my finger on it, it gets easier with the closing of the next 100 claims or so.
|
|
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 07:50:25
|
| OK, let's accept that dimunition of value is determined on a given loss. While it may be difficult or impossible to measure accurately, that should not matter with the wording in most of the policies we encounter. It is much the same as the old "appearance allowance" which most carriers have abandoned as a settlement tool. If we determine that damage exists(diminished value) then the insurer's obligation under the contract is to repair or replace that damage (the insurer's option). So as an adjuster (insurer representative), it would seem we have one of those two options available to address the damage. Either repair the damaged shingles or replace them as economic logic might dictate. |
Larry Wright |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 08:11:08
|
Considering for a moment all the world agrees that granual loss causes DV to an insureds roof after a hail storm. If a carrier is going to address it, it has to be done according to some type of agreed upon scale of measure. You cant have adjusters "haggling" with insureds, "ok, how about $500? Well what about $600? Do I hear $1000?" Doing this leads to compromise and there is no policy language for compromise. That's why you dont see appearance allowances anymore. The claim rep is basically asking the insured to take less than he is entitled to per the contract. It leaves a carrier wide open for a bad faith lawsuit.
Without a scale to determine if and what possible DV a roof experiences due to a hail storm or some other covered loss, no one is qualified to pull figures out of the air to pay for such a loss. We've all climbed 1000's of roofs but without any previous research or additional information from shingle manufacturers, its just a guess, regardless of experience. |
Edited by - CatDaddy on 03/20/2003 08:14:37 |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 18:21:06
|
| How about submitting shingles to a testing lab to determine whether or not they are damaged. Has anyone had a lab look at a shingle under high magnification? Can anyone comment regarding viewing shingles under high magnification? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Is granule loss considered hail damage?
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
