| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Reconstruction Man
124 Posts |
 Posted - 01/30/2004 : 13:54:09
|
Restore it as fairly and as fully as its physical state testified it was in before the "incident"...or better.
Unfinished wood under carpet is setting up another claim situation with spills, etc. waiting to happen. And multiple "strikes" against a policyholding homeowner can be partially prevented by alert and consciencious reconstruction / adjusting professionals.
Simply sealing a wood floor does not stop potential fluid penetration...and repeated damage.
And replacing expensive (carpet, etc. covered) oak, pine, etc. wood floor coverings with plywood, and that being "OK" with a homeowner...has the makings for some interesting "control the claim" ethics / u.c.s.p. chat...
|
 |
|
|
sbeau4014
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 14:08:54
|
Joe,
Let's stir the pot a little more and play devil's advocate to your latest response. Let's assume you have a house with 2 roofs on it, the bottom one being a 3 tab comp and the upper one being a roll roof. very large hail hits and destroys the roll roof, puncturing thru it and effectively "destroying" the 3 tab roof underneath it. It would generally be argued that the 3 tab roof was "abandoned" and the policy wouldn't owe to replace both of the roofs up there, just the roll roof. I realize this isn't an apples for apples situation for the flooring issues, but both situations address the "abandonment" of one surface to the top surface involved.
To quote my wife "there you go stirring it up again" |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 17:32:25
|
| sbeau4014....I think from the Flood side, we are pretty much saying the same thing....let us go to the ISO HO-3 4/91 side....about the roof..good question...I probably would adjust that loss to a conclusion by paying for all the tear-off down to a nailable surface and then would put one roof covering back on---at the insured's request....If the insured wanted 3 tab, then that is what I would allow...with a great deal of hold back until the repairs were made......I think that this would be the correct way of handling the roof...obviously the original 3 tab had a problem and that is why the insured put the rolled roofing on.......I think that the allowance for the 3 tab would be correct..and anyone--PA or Claims Manager would be hard pressed to call you on the "carpet" for this handling....and by the way, in the policy referred to in this post, abandonment is not an issue....ISO HO-3 4/91 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 17:48:13
|
I disagree on the roofing issue. What if the 1st roof was 30yr AR shingles and the second roof, the on on top, is 3 tab. Would you then give the insured the choice of materials? I would not. If they had deteriorated 3 tab covered with roll roof I believe you would owe to remove all roofing material down to the decking and replace with what the serviceable roof was at the time of the loss, roll roofing.
How many times have you seen 3 tab over wood shake? Would you pay to replace with the wood shake if that's what the insured wanted? I think not. |
|
|
|
sbeau4014
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 18:16:42
|
| I agree with you Kile, we have always paid for the servicable roof that was in place at the time of the loss, removing down to the deck or nailable surface. Don't know a claim manager out there that ould look at a pic of a damaged 3 tab comp roof, and an est to go back with wood shingle and not question the adjuster's adjusting/estimating skills. Although the policy doesn't use the wording of abandonment in it, it is a contract of indemnification, and removing the roofs and only replacing the top layer is indemnifying the insured and putting them back in their preloss condition (actually better as they are getting new for old) |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 18:31:46
|
| Kile and sbeau.....Easy does it....I was case specific...frankly I have not run into the 3 tab over wood shingles....I really don't know how I would handle that...but I do know that I would ask the carrier's opinnion......I still think that the replacement of the 3 tab is in order....in the above mentioned case...we have a honest difference of opinion......frankly if a PA was involved, I think most adjusters would allow the three tab to adjust the loss to a conclusion and close the file....only my opinion ....... |
|
|
|
Russ
USA
75 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 20:10:19
|
| I agree with Steve on the Flood issue. Any flooring that uses tack strip to install the carpet would damage any type of flooring and would be considered abandoned under flood. Carpet not attached would be considered contents as long as the insured had contents coverage. Flood will pay for one finished floor, and repair or replace subfloor if damaged. I do on occasion give the Homeowner the choice of the two floors due to depreciation on Carpet and no depreciation on vinyl or wood flooring. Sometimes depreciation of the Carpet is better for the insured than the depreciation on an old wood or vinyl floor. I also had a lot of hardwood floors in Houston and most could be sanded and sealed as subfloor. Only if they buckled badly would I replace the hardwood floor itself. If anyone gets to the Wind Conference in New Orleans look me up. |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2004 : 13:42:48
|
| I,M happy I found a" what if claim " I can agree with. I would take off all roofs to the "wood deck" and replace with 3 tab. Why? Its the smart -easy way out. |
|
|
|
gloverb
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2004 : 10:06:26
|
Cecil,
I have dealt with this precise situation in a standard HO policy a dozen or so times over the past 5 years with State Farm. They have been very consistent in how they handle it, at least in Texas.
They will pay for one finished surface & give the insured the option of either repairing & refinishing the wood floor with removal of the carpet;or, replacing the carpet with lkq & repair of wood floor with lkq but unfinished wood. They will not pay for a finished wood floor if carpet is replaced. |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2004 : 10:11:50
|
Interestingly enough... I hadn't handled a claim with a similiar scenario until the day after the thread began. Since then, I have handled 20. In each case I treated the wood floor under the damaged carpet as I would any subfloor. In each case it had been abandoned, as evidenced by the presence of carpeting tack strips. I mentioned it to some co-workers and we are in agreement that the abandoned wood floor is simply functioning as a subfloor and should be treated accordingly.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
Catmandale
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2004 : 11:39:02
|
Jennifer,
I'd like to offer up my opinion on this issue. As Ghostbuster mentioned early on, sometimes people cover up wood floors with carpet for comfort issues, only to use them again later. Hardwood flooring is not simply subfloor, as it is installed over a subfloor and finished for use. I would personally allow for a proper repair with the same material, and a sand & seal to protect. This may require repairing large areas depending on the direction and location of the tongue and groove/damaged areas. Then the carpet can be reinstalled over.
I have heard the arguement that the sanding neccessary to finish the whole room, or even just to tie in to the existing, would not put the insured back to their pre-loss condition. There are a limited number of sanding or finishing processes in a given flooring product, and if they give up one of those sandings in a water loss, they are down one and are not put back to pre-loss condition. I disagree, since they would have to have sanded when removing the carpet to reuse the floor.
Just my humble opinion.
Dale Strain |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2004 : 12:26:20
|
Dale, if a homeowner puts carpet over a hardwood floor and damages that floor in the process of carpet installation, then no matter when they choose to restore the floor, sanding and refinishing will be necessary, possibly even replacing some of the wood damaged during the carpet installation.
Are you proposing in your second paragraph that is is not proper to offer and sand and refinish on a hardwood floor after a water loss because the insured then loses an opportunity to have a floor with the possibility of 2-3 sandings? Where are you going with that second paragraph?
Jennifer |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2004 : 13:41:55
|
Fivedaily
What policy are you handling the 20 losses under....FLOOD??? or a standard ISO H0-3 4/91 form?? |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2004 : 17:15:04
|
Jim, good question. I am talking about the Deluxe and better policies that Allstate issues, which are similiar in content to the one mentioned by you. I do note by review that the original post regarded the flood policy but offered my opinion based on the fact that the discussion had already been opened up to non-flood policies. Thanks for making me clarify my response.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
Catmandale
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 01:21:34
|
Jennifer,
I was not clear enough in my first post.
I meant to distinguish between repairing the floor with the same material, ie...1/2 x 2 Red Oak strip laced in if that's what they had...rather than patching with ply or versaboard. If the floor is patched to simply provide a subfloor, they would not have the option of restoring the hardwood to a finished floor condition. Installing carpet tackless strip usually does not do a great deal of harm to the floor, and restoration is usually possible.
In the second paragraph I was playing devils advocate...I believe that the proper repair with sanding sealer is appropriate to put them in a pre-loss condition, as they would have to repair the carpet installation damage regardless.
Dale
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Carpet over hardwood floor
Forum Locked
