Forums

no comments ?

There are some must match rules in some states. It may be applicable in your client's state.
William S Cook
Florida Public Adjuster

Thanks
once again i only want what is fair for both parties.

In the locations I have worked, which I admit are not as many as some, we only paid for what was damaged, no more. For example, vinyl siding. Matching was not a consideration. Now that being said, in most cases the company bent over backwards to make sure the customer given every consideration before just saying no.

JWG

Have your client hire an attorney. Usually, just the mention of an attorney will change the perspective of the carrier in question. Insurance carriers do not do well in court as a rule.

I respectifully disagree with Jack French.  Very few first party cases ever get to court as the insured can not find an attorney to take a case to trial that has a slim chance of being won. On a case like this example I dont think you could find any attorney to take it on a contingency basis.  If an attorney took a case like this on a fee basis the retainer before going to court would be several thousand dollars. If millions of dollars are involved the whole picture changes. This is a perfect example of a case the insurance carrier would request appraisal provisions on.  { the amount of the loss is in dispute}.

"Well how about the cost of defense"..... Yes we have considered that good lawyers ,who can win cases like this will cost both sides the same amount. "How about a nuisance settlement ? Very well we will have our attorneys get a dismissal of the law suit. I will cancel my insurance.  Well we are sorry you feel that way.

Insurance carriers know their rights, duties and obligations.   Very bad advice to give, Jack.

I have been involved with mold claims with 3rd party liability claims with slum property's for years. I have been involved with some very large $ amount mold cases with resulting  trial verdicts in Texas. We may have seen the last of mold trials on both first and 3rd party claims.

Why ? Most liability polices now excluded damages from mold. The first party coverage is non existant or very low dollar amount limits and this takes the attorneys out of the picture.

myself, i will never reccomend an attorney.
i have read her policy, and in this matter it is vague.
what exactly is the same product. i believe instead of the total roof, you can break it down to trim pieces.
i still will push to replace all ridge & rake.
thanks for your input people, and none of this will be repeated in this matter.

Ray

I'm a business man. I keep a lawyer on retainer. I often just have him write a letter in cases involving Insurance Claims, and the response I get from the Insurance companies is usually very favorable towards my position. In the past, when I was not an adjuster, and had a claim of my own, just the mention of a lawyer would change the carriers attitude. I would never suggest a lawyer to an Insured I am dealing with, however, this is a roofing company dealing with an Insured, not my own. From my persional experience, my advice was spot on.

This topic is in three different forums.  I'm locking two of the topics.

The discussion can continued in this thread >> http://www.catadjuster.org/Forums/t...aspx