| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
mgkmrp
USA
27 Posts |
 Posted - 02/09/2004 : 19:47:36
|
This is regarding trees off structures(includeing fences) in Va.in the aftermath of Hurricane Isablle.
---Hurricane Isabel toppled a whole bunch of trees onto structures in Va.-
---my experience with a number of companies was that only two Companies consistently paid what was supposed to be paid according to a Va. SPECIAL PROVISION HO 01 45 04 99 which states, "THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY"
---This endorsement covers coverage language from Coverage C to sections I & II. Specifically regarding Trees,according the language of this endorsement, the HO policy risk is broadened to take the entire tree,rootball and all , off a structure, deleteing the $500 debris removal limit.
---One large well known Company simply stated that they would not pay for anything other than what their policy allowed for--and that policy HO-3(Titled "special policy") language was not a typical ISO format--
---My question to the Forum is, When a State puts out an endorsement,stateing that,"THIS CHANGES THE POLICY" does that mean ALL Homeowner policies regardless of how they are worded?
---IT seemed to me the purpose or intent of this endorsement by the State of Va. was to make the sure all companies complied ---im getting alot of different answeres to this. Im not far from seat of the Confederacy,Richmond Va.(even sat on the steps of one of Lee's mansions out in the country) and probably ought to go to the State Insurance Bureau downtown and get a some kind of answere-but i thought i might get a more accurate answere here. |
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2004 : 21:01:04
|
Is this endorsement, HO 01 45 04 99, a "mandatory" endorsement or an "amendatory" endorsement?
Therein lies your answer, within the answer to the above question. |
 |
|
|
Steve H
Switzerland
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2004 : 23:49:14
|
| The company I worked for in VA did not consider the rootball to be part of the tree that was subject to removal. I guess the point is that, even if the endorsement is mandatory, there will be differing interpretations of it. |
|
|
|
Cecil
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2004 : 07:21:45
|
I am still in VA working. Tree removal included all of it, if it was triggered by being on covered property, up to the limit of liability for the covered property plus the extra 5% if it was incurred.
The policy actually had the typical language. |
|
|
|
Cecil
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2004 : 07:29:34
|
| Correction: The policy language is such that debris removal is limited to limit for that damaged property plus an additional 5% if needed. This is for one particular Co.. |
|
|
|
Cecil
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2004 : 07:34:38
|
Correction: The policy language is such that debris removal is limited to limit for that damaged property plus an additional 5% if needed. This is for one particular Co..
The intent is for the HO to conform to the endorsement. The fact that some choose not to conform speaks for itself. If That last sentence is in error please say so. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2004 : 09:57:27
|
The intent is for the HO to conform to the endorsement. The fact that some choose not to conform speaks for itself. quote:
[/quote]
Cecil, could you give an example of how an insured would / could conform, and an example of how an insured would not or could not conform; relative to the endorsement being discussed?
Sorry, my 1st try at bringing forward a 'quote', seems I got my italics reversed. |
Edited by - CCarr on 02/10/2004 10:00:30 |
|
|
|
mgkmrp
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2004 : 16:10:00
|
Thank You for the replies--I went downtown Richmond to the Bureau of Insurance and asked about this in person to the Homeowners Policy division.
---This post is now a work in progress, and the following is only a partial answere for now-the remainder i will post after i go deep deep into a particular website(about 20 clicks or so)where the answere is supposed to be(tried twice but it doesnt get through yet).
---This particular endorsement by the State of Virginia applies only to ISO forms, not to policys that are not ISO forms--this endorsement "broadens" the risk to the Insurance Companies, and some Company policies that are not ISO have done so as well ---that is why it appeared to Me that some companies where abiding by the State Endorsement, and others were not--The Companies that did pay for the whole tree from tip of canopy to and includeing rootball are either written on ISO forms,and are complying with the endorsement, or, also had that broadened language in Thier policys, or,,,well,,,ah--- no need to go there in this forum!
---The State of Virgina does has minimum policy requirements for homeowners policies--this is a mandate for all policies, and ALL policies must comply-the remainder of the answere lie therein, and I intend on pursueing this until i find a correct answere in full.
---This is an issue that arise's(for me)every Hurricane i have been to. The characters of this issue should be similar from state to state, with some changes thrown in for the Wind Pool. I recon most who read this post understand this issue anyway-but just for grins, I will post what i find out.
|
|
|
|
mgkmrp
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 14:20:30
|
| Progress is being made, so everybody can back off the edge of thier seat-should know the answere by end of week, Feb 20---im going to post a similar post in the Coverage and Endorsement section-where this post should have been in the first place |
|
|
|
mgkmrp
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2004 : 12:30:28
|
I believe i have the difinitive anwsere to this issue at least in the state of Virginia--i am going post it in the coverage forum.
thanks |
|
|
|
mgkmrp
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2004 : 13:39:47
|
| Strike the word,"difinitive"(what was i thinking) |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Virginia Special Provision
Forum Locked
