Forums

Davis:
just so you know, even though it is none of your business, our " unreputable company" was called in after the roof was already bought.
only a few companies can handle these extreme roofs, and we are probably the best.
what would you replace this roof with, do you even know the products that are comparible ?
sorry you didnt get this 1 on your fee schedule.

Can't say that I've ever seen a HardiShake roof.  Sounds very similar to the Masonite Woodruf product that I saw plenty of in certain developments built by the same large builder.  Made for a mess of things after a relatively minor hail storm in Omaha a few years ago.  Wondering if this the same shake just made by different mfr?

Great post Jim. I will not comment, but will give a what if, my self. This is a fire loss in the Montrose section of Houston in the open gay district. When i get the loss I see its on a street on Lovett Street a lovey old street with 2 story houses with stately homes from 1900  for about 50 years. Some still have cast iron hitch post for the carrage at the curb. When I get the loss I notice the insured a well known gay bar. Its on a mixed use street that now has wrought iron fence, gay bar, antique shop etc sprinkled along the 10 block stretch.

Its 10 AM and the clean up person has orders to let me in and show me around. At the curb I can see the rear and the west side. I can see 4x6 end beveled rafter tails on the west side, I can not see the tails on the rear as a lean to roof and open beer garden is in this area. Tables and bench on concrete pavers loose laid on stabilized by crush croncete foundation base.I also notice 4 inch cast iron waste lines from a up stair bath that was added on from the orignal screen porch that was original .The roof was a hip with 4 slopes and the shingle,s were the old John Mansville ridgid adbestos shingles that a single Clip(dastner-nail (also called mineral fiber today) at the botton of the square shingle turned 90 degrees when installed. I also saw EMT screwed to the wood lath behind the stucco siding and 3 differant type of aluminum retrofit windows on the  back with on one the West  side. I also saw a yard light powered by wire runing from the junction box on the NW corner of the front porch.

When I got inside I found a large square bar with 10 stools on each side 3 small 4x6 Valley Pool Tables, Juke box, tables and chairs. I could see evidence of most of the walls removed, the rest room inlarged, an inside spiral staircase to the end floor, and 3 colors of VA tile over a wood subfloor, save a 20x20 read Oak dance in the extreme NE corner.

This was a straight foward fire loss insured with a Lloyds Underwriter who wrote Gay Bars and it was noy my first, or last.

I need to give some history of the building as it bears on the loss. The first operator of this bar was born in this house. He owned several properties in this part of Houston his family was an old line family. After operationg the bar for several years, he beane weary of the hours, hot checks, drunks and his best customers found other places. He sold his interest in the bar and dwelling to his"head manager" under a contract for deed with a 5 year pay out. He would come in one day a week, rob the machinesthat he owned and split the pot, but take his Note out of the rest, plus another 1K per week. head got tired and weary after 3 years and 8 months and moved to New York. Then Bruce took the bar after purchasing Heads stock on the same, he lasted 4 years, but had law trouble for coke and hugh legal expense. Then along came Bill the present owner who cleaned the place up somewhat did the Beer Garden thing and the upstairs bath and game rooms with dim lights. Bill almost doubled the register, and had some of the Rice  and St Thomas University croud on week end. Some of the  students help on the beer garden.

The loss was moving along well until Bill engaged a PA. The PA contended the policy had to rebuild the house  to remove or cover the plumbing electrical, aluminum windows, non stand beer garden cover etc etc.

I said no..... What say you and how do you make out the check when you get an agreed loss. The PA's contract showed his contingency 0f 10% and stated his named must be put on the check by law.  Both building and contents has adequate insurance. C & 0 rather straight foward also. Bill was not present, nor was Mr Lovett. The on duty bar tender set the inside stair door on fire and tried to trap his lover and the person who was upstaurs with him. Out come judgement proof, but hard time.

Am researchig the threads for a copy of the Loyds policy.  At the present read it appears that the fire damage is to the stair area and possibly upstairs.  The comments also include that the fire was set, indicating an arson charge, to cause severe harm or death to people occuping the upstairs room(S).  The extent of the fire damage is not defined, but on the assumption that the actual fire damage is reserved to the stair and upstairs room(S), the balance of the property damage would be smoke. 

I have to assume, based on the stage of the claim that LLoyds is paying the arson claim, that the LKQ would extend to only those areas that sustained the actural fire damage.  Now we are into is it cheaper to bury the utilities in the wall or replace them in the manner built.  With the fire damage the walls are already open, it would appear to be more cost effective to utilize off the shelf materials as utilized in standard new construction.

Two new learning opportunities are presented with the question about the PA wanting his name on the check, I will first ask my supervisor.  Under normal circumstance the check is made payable to the Named insureds, and the mortgage company (if named on the DEC).  Question 1 is can the NI request that the check be made payable or co-payable to other entities IE Contractors, PA's etc???  When a PA is involved, is it standard practice to include his name on the check.  the PA does have a contract with the NI, but he can recover his money, if not paid, through a mechanics lein.

Sorry that this is only a partial answer.  With the current information, I am going to request up to the 45 day extension, in order to contact experts to resolve

a. the arson question

b. the PA question

c. the LKQ to me is pretty well cut and dried.  IN the areas directly affected by the fire, we can use current materials as used in new construction to replace those items damaged/destroyed by fire. All other structure members, and/or furnishings can be remediated to remove the smoke stains and odor. 

Jim, this thread began loosely about LKQ - that is a deep subject though is a routine issue in insurance claims. One could spend an entire afternoon discussing it.

The other unrelated issue raised in this thread is about loss payees and insurance carrier obligations and I offer some comments.

Generally, an insurance carrier is obligated by contract to protect the interests of loss payees which are named in the policy (mortgage companies the most obvious).  Failure of the carrier to protect the interest(s) of the loss payee(s) subjects them to paying the claim again (at least, to the extent of the loss payee(s) financial interest).  That is, if the carrier fails to name the loss payee(s) on the payment and the insured absconds with the money or doesn’t otherwise perform the required repairs, the loss payee can force the carrier to pay again. Yes, it does happen.

Each insurance carrier has internal policies concerning their duty to protect the interests of the loss payees: some carriers will only issue first party payments naming both the named insured(s) and the loss payee(s). Other carriers will have an internal policy that if the total damages are over a certain amount (trip amount) they will only issue payments naming the insured(s) and the loss payee(s) and, for claims under the trip amount they decide on a case by case basis whether or not to name the loss payee(s).

As part of your routine litany as an adjuster when first contacting or meeting the insured(s) is to advise them of the loss payee issue. Inform them of the carrier’s policy (if known ex: the carrier will only issue joint payments) or that the carrier has the option to name the loss payee. Instruct the insured(s) to contact their loss payee and advise them of the claim so that the loss payee can be involved. Advise the insured(s) that the insurance carrier does not have anything to do with the loss payee(s) internal procedures for handling loss proceeds. For example, some loss payees when they receive the check will simply endorse it over to the insured(s) and the insured can do what they want. On the other hand, some loss payees (namely, mortgage companies) will dole out the proceeds in phases (to the insured(s) and/or the insured(s)’ contractors) as the repairs are being made (they may, as part of their internal procedures , send their own inspectors to check the progress and completion of the repairs). There can be a significant delay in processing by the loss payee and is why an adjuster should immediately notify the insured so the insured in turn can make timely notification to the loss payee; such delays can cause consternation to the insured(s) and their contractors who are expecting timely payments so you can see why the adjuster should alert the insured(s) and why a number of folks would be upset with the adjuster who doesn’t.

Insurance carriers can have obligations to name third parties who are not named in the policy. which arise from statutes and/or other law. An example, I once handled a total loss fire (structure and contents) and upon my first arrival at the loss scene, I was met by representatives of various local, state, and federal agencies. Concurrent with the loss, the insured was under investigation for growing and distributing drugs. To be sure, valid governmental liens were filed against the proceeds which totaled around $600,000 and as required, the carrier issued joint payments as required. The insured was subsequently convicted.

In instances involving loss payee(s) not named in the policy, the carrier is not obligated to name other parties, but may do so only if requested by the insured (contractors, for example, or as required by law etc.).  A related topic for discussion with insured(s) is, regardless of whether a contractor is/is not named on loss payments, the insurance carrier is not guaranteeing the work of the contractor (so any work product disputes are between the insured(s) and the contractors(s) they hire) so, the insured(s) should take steps to verify the qualifications of the contractor and that they are properly licensed/bonded/insured, etc. You do so to protect the carrier by advising the insured(s) that the carrier is not guaranteeing the work of the contractors - an issue which comes up all the time ex: the insured(s) asks for contractor referrals.

For illustration, I once had an insured who lived in the Seattle area and owned rental properties in Eastern Washington , several hours drive away. One of the rental houses sustained about $5,000 damages. There was no loss payee on the risk. When I made contact with the insured, she advised she had already selected a contractor and the contractor wanted payment up-front of the entire amount.  As usual, I gave my standard litany to the insured and further advised her that it was never a good idea to release full payment of proceeds until the work was done and she was satisfied but that often small contractors could not float the material costs so she might consider a down-payment based on her personal assessment of the contractor. I issued the payment naming only the insured. About 2 weeks later, a distraught insured called me seeking repayment (of the entire claim amount) because: the contractor (in Eastern Washington) had called her (in Seattle area) and managed to convince her that he needed all the funds before he could begin work. The contractor concerned about 'not inconveniencng" the insured offered to drive the several hours round-trip to meet the insured at her home in Seattle. You guessed it: the insured did pay the contractor the entire $5,000 and the contractor absconded with the money without doing any of the repairs. Guess what my response to the insured was regarding her request to reissue payment?

A further note on the issue of ‘guaranteeing repairs’. Some carriers have preferred contractors including those where the carrier is essentially guaranteeing their work product if the insured chooses to utilize them. I personally have never liked this system because of the inherent moral hazards.  If an insured asks for a referral (and the carrier instructions do not preclude and I feel comfortable giving them a list), I tell them it is a referral only, that the choice of contractor(s) is the insureds’ and that neither I nor the carrier is guaranteeing the work of that contractor(s) and,  followed by the admonitions mentioned in the preceding paragraph that  the insured should be prudent in checking the contractor(s) qualifications, etc.

Further on this matter of preferred contractors, is the practice of some insurance carriers to attempt to steer insureds to a particular contractor but, at the same time, attempting to give an impression of an ‘arms length’ relationship. This is a way that carriers attempt to control costs and this issue comes up frequently in insurance claims, particularly in auto physical damage claims.  Generally, in most states an insurance carrier is prohibited from requiring an insured utilize a particular contractor (because of the aforementioned issue of giving the impression the contractor works for the insurance carrier and the carrier is, in effect, guaranteeing the repairs) or  is prohibited from directing the insured to particular repair facilities or contractors. For example, one well known auto carrier has ‘relationships’ with several auto body shops. The carrier usually requires the insured/claimant to come to one of the carrier’s drive-in claims centers where the carrier’s appraiser will write the damages and tell the insured that XYZ body shop will do the repairs for the amount of the appraiser’s estimate. Keep in mind that XYZ body shop has never laid eyes on the vehicle. So, is this legal or fair claims practice??

P.S. - as for your tag line: "Ignorance is a no know" and you can quote me on that.
 

Ray, would you expound a little bit. You lost me on the NCNO and having another contractor go out.

Its called craming a contractor down the insureds throat. Very risky, but it will call the NCNO's (no clue, just no) hand. Its only done with the companies blessing and I have not used it more than 10 time in 49 years. Read the contract it says we have the right to repair or replace.