| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GRoos
USA
8 Posts |
 Posted - 01/27/2004 : 21:20:10
|
Consider that this is a standard homeowners policy with the usual bells and whistles. The situation is the insured residence sustains a large partial fire loss. The contents were cleaned on scene under the PE Coverage. The dwelling is unliveable. The questions is what coverage would the transportation and storage of the PE fall into, PE or ALE? Remember, the PE has already been cleaned. I am leaving my viewpoint out of this so that I may receive unbiased opinions.
Thanks, |
|
|
Glowtom
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 22:58:03
|
| I probably know it under a different name but what is "PE Coverage"? |
 |
|
|
GRoos
USA
8 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 23:01:43
|
| PE is my term for Personal Effects. The proper insurance term is UPP. |
|
|
|
Glowtom
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 23:05:44
|
| Maybe Personal Effects? I believe the cleaning, handling and storage of contents would be UPP. I have worked for companies that have allowed the moving of cleaned or undamaged contents to be ALE only when UPP limits were exhausted. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 23:17:27
|
Gary, Coverage C - Personal Property, would be the applicable coverage for the cleaning of the contents (PE), the transportation of them to a storage facility while the dwelling was being repaired, and for the storage cost incurred for the contents; until the dwelling was ready again.
There is nothing in Coverage D - Loss of Use (ALE) for the above items. |
|
|
|
goose
57 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 01:29:01
|
| Occasionaly ale coverage is available for moving contents; not cleaning and not storage, to the temporary residence to be used by the insureds while their house is being repaired. But that was not how you worded it. |
|
|
|
william s cook
53 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 08:45:31
|
If a policy did not provide UPP coverage and the UPP removal was necessary to effect the repairs to a covered dwelling, the removal, but not the storage or return of the UPP should be given consideration as a necessary part of the repair process. Just my thoughts and I welcome the professional discourse of alternative views as they relate to coverage.
William S Cook
Public Adjuster |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 09:16:24
|
Bill, I would enrich the process that you have mentioned.
If there was no UPP coverage, but the removal, storage and then return of the UPP was necessary to effect a timely repair of the dwelling; I would allow the expense of all of that under Coverage A.
If a carrier allowed the cost to remove UPP so as its presence would not hinder the building repair, it would seem logical to me that the incurred cost of storage and return are equal required parts of that choice. |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 09:33:12
|
My opinion would be that coverage for removal and storage would only be under UPP.
A Risk with only Coverage A, as in a simple fire policy, has to be seen as only an empty building. Anything inside not related to the buildings maintenance would need a separate coverage. Wouldn't it?
As for ALE, I seem to recall that this is coverage is for the added costs, over and above what is normally spent, in actual living expenses to establish living off premises. Does this include moving moving undamaged or repaired items to the new place from the Risk? I'd say, yes. Does it include the moving and storage costs, to say a rent-a-closet? I'd say, no. |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 10:50:23
|
| If UPP was not insured and had to be moved to allow the building to be repaired.. it would be part of the building loss. This brings up the big question... how many feet, yards, miles. If an auto was stuffed with clothing and all had to be removed/stored to allow collision repairs; what distance? Reasonable!! |
|
|
|
sflorig
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 11:27:36
|
If the UPP is being moved to make repairs it would probably be included in your dwelling estimate (ie: "move & reset contents, pack out/pack in") and would be coded under Coverage A.
If the contents are being moved off site for cleaning and storage and Coverage C is available then I would include in my contents estimate and code it under Coverage C.
If there is no Coverage C or Coverage C has been exhausted I would only allow to move and store the contents if it is necessary to make repairs to the dwelling.
Some areas of the country have portable stoarge units (such as PODS - Portable On Demand Storage) that can be dropped off at your insured's residence and the contents of the house can be kept on site. This may save some costs associated with truck rental, moving labor and storage costs. |
Edited by - sflorig on 01/28/2004 11:34:20 |
|
|
|
GRoos
USA
8 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 14:45:27
|
| Thank you all for your input in this matter. My arguement has always been that if the home is unliveable and the contents need to be moved and stored, this is under the ALE. Many of you bring up excellent points as to why this should be considered under UPP Coverage. Because you ar dealing with the contents. I am an I/A and I have delt with carriers who covered this matter both ways. |
|
|
|
Bill Hill
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 15:03:55
|
My opinion is that the manipulation of the PE, contents, UPP or whatever you want to call them would be a component of the repairs to the structure. Every estimating software I have seen provides a cost value for content manipulation.
I don't think that ALE would afford coverage to the above scenario under normal conditions. The contents manipulation to effectuate repairs would not be a bona fide component of living expenses in my opinion. If you are cleaning or laundering clothing - then this has some ALE components to it. However cleaning and removing the PE so as to prevent their damage during repairs to the structure may activate additional coverage (coverage C) under Reasonable Repairs. Have not the contents been repaired? Yes. Then the removal and reseting of them might be considered under the reasonable repairs clause. So really you have several coverage scenarios with which you can write up the loss. I would keep it simple unless coverage limitations are involved. |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 15:22:59
|
| You saw your building was going to be burned by the forrest fire. You had fire insurance on the building, but none on the contents. You ran in and moved all the uninsured property to a safe haven. No coverage-no pay. You pumped one million gallons of water up the hill to cool down the building and save it. Present your cost to the fire insurance company for the building for reimbursment. |
|
|
|
Linda
USA
127 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 18:04:10
|
Ghost, you are right and wrong. There are still policies in force in our great state that are not just fire policies and with no personal property coverage. I actually adjusted one--water damage. Needless to say a call to the agent was in order as these are few and far between.
There was no coverage for the Personal Property, however, everyone agreed that the repairs could not be effected with the contents present. The carrier paid for manipulation and storage. No cleaning was done. You can't clean what is not insured but you must move it out of the way. All covered under structure.
I cannot imagine why you would place moving contents from Personal Property to ALE. Even if you move them to a rental home while the repairs are being made it still is Personal Property.
I have adjusted a fair amount of ALE and never have I ever seen a reason to shift the contents to ALE. There is usually a fairly low limits for ALE and I can see how this could put you over the top if you are getting close to limits.
I can't think of a scenario where this could be additional living expenses. If I am wrong, someone please explain. I realize that a carrier can direct you to do so, but why?
|
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 18:08:51
|
| Is the boarding cost of a pet paid for as ALE by ALL CARRIERS? WHY? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
PE vs ALE - Which Coverage does this fall into?
Forum Locked
