Forums

Odie my question is : If masking is required to paint why is it not subject to betterment . If painting a room is an operation with a unit price, why would not all parts of the complete operation be subject to "betterment" if some enhancement to the dwelling/property as a whole take place from the operation?

If you research court decisions where "depreciation" is a factor you will find that generally speaking "depreciation" applies to items that physically depreciate. Using painting as an example, only the paint would be "depreciated" and not the labor.

depreciating labor depends on the state. In California it is not depreciated, by case law. In Texas, I understand that labor can be depreciated.

In my opinion masking should not be depreciated. The homeowner is not being compensated to have his masking restored to "like kind quality" - he doesn't even have any masking! He is getting his paint restored, and depending on the circumstances the paint might be depreciated. The masking is an expendable item, used up in the process of restoration. The repair process might also include water and chemicals used to pressure wash, or plastic bags used to dispose of trash. These items should also not be depreciated.

Here is an Oklahoma case which stated: " The cost of removing damaged shingles is not subject to depreciation. However, the labor cost of installing new shingles is subject to depreciation."

The full case can be read here:

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/...06224.html

Please understand every state is different. Also, do not make the mistake of assuming that the Oklahoma case above is going to control all Oklahoma claims. It is an appellate case, so it might be case law. Also a lot of times the cases that are easy to find are the more important cases that ARE case law. Just don't assume that this case represents the final Oklahoma law. If you read it carefully the appeals court asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court how to do depreciation correctly and the appeals court used their answer in their decision. So this very likely IS the controlling case law in Oklahoma, I'm just not qualified to know.

When you read a similar case from another state you may find that the decision is totally different, but also carefully analyzed- just different judges reaching different conclusions.

This is why adjusters need to ask their carriers if they don't know how it is supposed to be done.

Please show me any policy that uses the term "betterment".

Leland, I would point out that the Oklahoma roofing example only applies to "shingles" and only in all of Oklahoma if the court was the Supreme court of Oklahoma.

In Arkansas, case law is different in the federal districts and in the state districts. Only a Federal circuit decision or a State Supreme court decision would apply to the whole state.