Forums

Yes Ray, I agree. If its all patched up already you don't owe for plaster in that area.

The best way I know to get drywall to line line up with old plaster is to set a small piece of drywall, maybe 5/8", against the stud and adjacent to a plaster area. Then the worker can carefully measure the difference between the two with a depth guage. That measurement is for the thickness of the shims that need to be nailed to the stud.
Then you rip the shims on a table saw and nail them up to the stud. Now when you set your drywall the new surface will line up exactly with the height of the old plaster and there will be minimal mudding and taping, saving hours and hours of work and giving a neater result. But there are other problems too, like breaking away old plaster to line up with a stud (not easy) so what I would do in a case like you describe if there is say about 50% old plaster on a wall and the insured doesn't deserve new plaster because because the walls are so heavily patched in other parts of the room, then maybe I would pay for that whole wall to be drywalled instead of 50%, because to be fair the "tie in" labor can be substantial and just demo'ing the whole wall might be reasonable.

But I agree with you, if it is all patched up maybe the insured isn't entitled to new plaster.

Another way to look at it would be to heavily depreciate it if it is past its useful life

Posted By Ray Hall on 23 Sep 2009 01:27 AM

Lets go back to my DP1 with a house in California. The house has plaster over wood lath in all walls and ceilings. Over the years all of the ceilings were replaced in both floors because of roof claims and plumbing leaks over fifty percent of the walls had been replaced with drywall for several reasons and the drywall was nailed to the studs or joist as the lath was not a nailable surface.Now this house has a kitchen fire in the only room left with plaster walls and the next to  last wood sash DH window. 

... but I don,t thing he would say wood larth and plaster is to be paid.

This is another example where one has to really read the policy.  Many carriers have a distinction on the issue of historical building materials - with 2 choices of coverage.  a) common building materials available today, or b) putting back what was there (lath & plaster, for this example).

Your example is complicated because the house is a hybrid of prior repairs with modern drywall + some old lath & plaster remaining.

But if the policy distinguishes common building materials, then the guesswork is gone.

 

About to get my fingers burned, but here goes.

In reading the threads above 2 themes evolve A) replacement cost and recoverable depreciation, and B) repair/replacement items. Much of the conversaton has been on the replacement of structure elements (elec, plumb, etc) that are out of date. Using the State Farm Standard Homeowners Form (the only one I have and was used on 80%?? of the Katrina/Ike claims) Section 1 Loss Settlement A1 para (4) "we will not pay for increased costs from the enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair..."

The key word above is INCREASED COSTS

Again in Section 1 Loss Settlement A2 Replacement Cost Loss Settlement-Common Construction para a. "We will pay the cost to repair or replace with common construction and for the same use on the premises..."

The key word above is WITH COMMON CONSTRUCTION AND FOR THE SAME USE

Going on in Section 1 A2 para a-1 "We will pay only for the repair or replacement of the damaged part of the property with common construction technique and materials commonly used by the building trades in standard new construction."

The key word above is STANDARD NEW CONSTRUCTION

Utilizing the above, when the claim is scoped I would detail the damages, take my photos, then start the estimate. All of the above "old style" construction methods would not show up on my price list. I would then be forced to use the pricing for replacement that is based on the CURRENT PRICING PREVELANT in the zip code where the peril happened. Now if I am fat dumb and happy I have done my best faith estimate because the electrial is back on line with no more electriacal or less electriacal access than the NI had before the loss, I can close the claim. Now if I am just dumb and fat, and worried that the reviewer is going to look at the photos and say wait, I see all of this exposed conduit wiring and no costing for conduit, what is going on, I would then reply that (should have put in my SOL note) a) that style of wiring is not in compliance with Section 1 A2 para a-1, and that the costs for the return to original would be in excess of the cost for similar construction to new....

As far as the recovery of depreciation and payment on RCV, (assuming that the NI is honest and not trying to take the carrier to the cleaners) at the time of loss settlement, a good explanation of the procedure goes a long way. the base of RCV is (I believe)
1. We have the agreed original cost of the item destroyed/damaged
2. We have the age of the item
3. The factors used for depreciation are :
a, age
b. condition
c life expectancy
4. That the initial check will be for the amount determined to be the Actual Cash Value at the time of the loss
5. That the recovery of the balance of the claim dollars Replacement Cost Value(RCV0 minus Actual Cash Value (ACV) will be paid as follows:
a. that check will be for receipts forwarded in the amout that does not exceed the stated loss settlement amount
b. that the amounts include, materials, labor
c. that labor, if performed by the NI, or contracted by the NI can be billed at the actual rate submitted possibly PLUS O&P AS LONG as the total does NOT EXCEED the stated loss settlement amount.
d. and finally if the cost to effect repairs is less than the depreciation recovery the balance is not paid as a BONUS, we only pay the cost to get the NI property back to what was there before the loss, no better, no worse.

Folks what we have here is a failure to communicate (OOPS A LINE FROM PAUL NEWMAN) seriously, when we file our claim if we are not fat, dumb, and happy, and we do our job properly, we will have looked at the damages, and either through knowledge, or contacting reputabale people on the cost to return to previous state versus return to common practice will have submitted a claim that is the most cost effective for the NI and carrier. Do not forget DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT.