| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Cecil
USA
35 Posts |
 Posted - 01/29/2004 : 15:27:44
|
| Water damage to wall to wall carpet over hardwood floor. Both floors damaged. How would you handle it under HO policy? Same senario, Flood policy, one with contents coverage and the other policy with no contents coverage. |
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:22:59
|
Carpet over wood floor generally indicates the wood floor has been 'abandoned' per se. It should be treated as a sub-floor. However, the policy owes for a 'sub-floor' of LKQ. You just don't have to allow for all the finishing. Put back the oak (or whatever) strips so that it can be restored at some future date if desired. I have had people thrilled with that scenario and they felt like they were being taken care of properly.
(Not NFIP certified so I don't know about that part!) |
Kevin Hromas |
 |
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 17:29:18
|
In my experience, Kevin is correct.
Since the hardwood floor has been abandoned there is no need to restore it. You might even, depending on the extent of the damage, being able to sand it down and then install new carpeting over it. Of course, if it is beyond sanding, then what Kevin suggested is how I would handle it... no matter the type of policy (assuming coverage from the water loss existed).
Jennifer |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 17:34:42
|
| If the hardwood is truly abandoned then it is now just subfloor and all that is owed is another subfloor, plywood or OSB and new carpet. I haven't handled a flood claim in a while but I believe it would still be handled the same way. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 17:56:48
|
I do agree with Kevin and Jenn with respect to handling this scenario within the framework of a HO policy.
What I wanted to add, is some caution on the issue of "abandoned" hardwood flooring. That could be a very subjective issue, even though I would proceed as Kevin and Jenn indicated.
The hardwood floor under carpet, does create value and a finished component to the structure beyond that of a true subfloor; which lies under the hardwood flooring.
The hardwood flooring may have been covered over by the previous owner, for many reasons; babies and young children is one reason I used to hear frequently. Or, it could be the current owners intent to lift the carpet when finances allow and to refinish the hardwood as the flooring choice to them; or before they sell. |
|
|
|
Type R 1090
Canada
14 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 21:55:49
|
| I have run into that scenario quite a few times in the past little while - carpet over lino, carpet over carpet, carpet over parquet floor. Whatever was on the top I have always allowed for LKQ replacement, where as whatever underneath (if damaged) would be replaced with something more conventional (in the case of carpet over carpet regular underpad and in the case of a carpet over hardwood a "normal" subfloor). No insured has ever challenged me on this, as most of them only care about what they see on top. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 22:38:10
|
I vote with Kevin and Jennifer who I suggest are handling the claim properly.
If the damage is carpet over hardwood, I would recommend payment for LKQ carpet and for an unfinished hardwood floor. That is the way I was taught to do it and have never had an insurance company balk at that recommendation. |
|
|
|
catmanager
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 00:05:03
|
I agree, neighbor to the north/Jim. Had a claims manager once try to tell me that paying for the "abandoned" hardwoods was akin to tearing off 3 layers and re-roofing with 3 layers....
|
Edited by - catmanager on 01/30/2004 00:05:58 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 00:29:14
|
| You know, I am wondering if Kile and others who would adjust this claim his way, would remember to adjust the carpet, and then break down the hardwood floor treatment so as to remove hardwood floor and then replace with sub-floor or underlayment board, instead of unconsciously writing the estimate as remove/replace sub-floor (which is not the same measured in costs). |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 08:39:52
|
| Nope, not a problem Jim, I'd remove hardwood and replace with subfloor. I think this would probably end up being a management call based on regional interpretation. |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 08:57:28
|
I'm a gonna flop on the other side of this issue. I believe we owe for LKQ and if a finished hardwood floor is under the carpet, we owe for whats there. I do not believe in second guessing the owners future intent. Whether the Insured put the carpet down for whatever reason and may intend to pull the carpet later, is not our business.
My last house was built in 1928 and the prior owner had put carpet over the hardwood floor because their elderly feet got cold. Being in our early 30's, our feet were not cold and we pulled the carpet and were delighted to use the hardwood floor. That finished hardwood floor still retained it's value and utility tho it was covered up by the carpet. That floor had NOT been abandoned. it was just in storage.
As an aside, I am reminded of the old adage that when 10 adjusters are put in a room with a banana, they find 10 different ways to peel it. |
|
|
|
Janice Toll
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 10:04:10
|
It seems that, as yet, no one has answered the question as it relates to flood coverage. It is my understanding that, under the flood policy, if the carpet is installed over hardwood floor, the carpet can and would be considered personal property. Flood Policy states: "B. Coverage B - Personal Property, 2. Coverage for personal property includes the following property c. Carpets over finished flooring." It is further my understanding that there would be no coverage for carpet over hardwood flooring if there is no contents coverage. Coverage for the hardwood floor would be under Coverage A.
If my understanding of the Flood Policy is wrong, will someone who has more flood claims experience than I, please correct me. |
Janice R. Martin-Toll |
Edited by - Janice Toll on 01/30/2004 10:12:08 |
|
|
|
Davey
USA
38 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 11:08:41
|
| The 12th banana has this approach. Remove and replace the hardwood, sand and seal the new hardwood. No stain and no finish. New carpet on top of the hardwood floor in storage. |
|
|
|
Dakota Kid
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 12:33:40
|
| I will tackle the first part. I am not a flood adjuster so I won't pretend to know the second part. OK to your Question. On a Ho 3 we owe for what is there, with that said we don't owe for nice looking hardwood flooring we would owe for the material less the finish and the sanding to make it look good. I would propably pay for the material and do a 10% holdback as well. I don't like to do a lot or any deprecation on wood it just doesn't depreciate More then likely the insured is going to put chip board down for the subfloor. |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 13:45:22
|
Okay...let's stir the pot a little....Policy..ISO H0-3 4/91......I request that Fivedaily or Kile please point out and quote where the policy addresses the issue of an "abandonded" floor in regards to repair/replacement of same. It would be my opinion that under the above mentioned policy, we would owe to indemnify the insured--put back as they were prior to the loss.....if in fact the there was a properly finished, un marred wood floor under the pad and carpet, then we would owe to replace the damaged finished wood floor. If the wood floor needed refinishing prior to the loss, then adjust accordingly...........Question: If kitchen cabinets are damaged and when removed the drywall behind the cabinets is painted and the drywall is also damaged, would you not paint the drywall behind the cabinets after it was repaired??? You owe it, don't you???
Many times we will find a water damaged tile floor....the tiles have become unadhered due to a pipe leak in the slab...when inspection is done, we have found that the tile has been laid over vinyl...now what??? That vinyl is no longer in use and has had tile glued to it...what do you do??? Pay for removal of the tile and the Vinyl and pay for replacement of the tile, but not the replacement of the vinyl...why? because the installation of the tile has damaged the vinyl and there is no value.........ISO H0-3 4/91 REPLACEMENT COST---Policy of Indemnification.......
Flood Policy----Tom , if there is contents coverage, then you can call the carpeting personal contents and cover the floor under the structure coverage.........if no contents coverage then the insured gets to chose which finish he wants..Carpets or Finished floor, but not both......Remember, the flood policy is a beast unto itself and is the same where ever the loss is located......IT is run by the FEDERAL Government, and they set the rules of adjustment...very different in scope and coverage as compared to the HO-3 |
Edited by - jlombardo on 01/30/2004 13:47:31 |
|
|
|
sbeau4014
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 13:45:50
|
Follows is some guiudelines from the flood side of the issue. I have some questions on the wording in reference to the carpeting being paid for materials only, but haven't dealt with this issue since I got this info so it hasn't been clarified. The 2001 flood in Houston had this issue come up a bit and I paid to replace a few hardwood floors (without finishing them) and carpet on top of that.
"Carpet over an unfinished floor is covered under the building coverage.
Carpet over a hardwood floor is covered under the contents coverage unless the finished floor has been "abandoned". If that is the case then the carpet coverage reverts to the building coverage, and the damage to the "abandoned" floor is handled according to the policy, with like kind and quality, subject to the appropriate depreciation. In other words, if the hardwood floor had been previously patched using a material other than what was originally installed, then this floor is truly “abandoned”. This floor should be repaired as a sub floor using regular sub floor material and not hardwood. The carpet is to be paid under the contents coverage using the material price of the carpet only, no labor or waste added. If there is no contents coverage, the adjuster should help the insured to decide which finish floor to replace in order to obtain the most payment. You can only pay to replace one finish floor.
An “abandoned” floor is a finished floor that has deteriorated to the point that it can no longer be used as a finished floor. If the floor can be returned to it’s intended condition, then it is not “abandoned”
Example: Carpet is laid over a hardwood finished floor and tacking strips are used. If the tacking strips can be removed and the floor can be sanded and finished, it is still a serviceable floor and is not “abandoned”.
Example 2: Carpet over sheet vinyl or vinyl tile and tack strips are used. The tack strips have damaged the sheet vinyl and vinyl tile and have made them “abandoned” floors. The carpet is paid under the building coverage. You can remove the sheet vinyl/vinyl tile, but you can only replace the carpet - (only 1 finished floor)."
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Carpet over hardwood floor
Forum Locked
