Forums

 I had a seller who had not hooked up to the sewer in the alotted time given them .In order for us to sell the home the seller had to hook onto the new sewer system before he could sell it.  He was going to have to pay the penalty in addition to the new installation. The sewer district was able to reduce the penalty for him but he still had to pay 1/2 of the penalty. Although they weren't made to remove the abandoned septic system but they did have to fillin the septic w/ dirt.

Posted By Leland on 22 Sep 2010 11:29 PM
Ray- is it OK for me to say on a public forum that I love you like a brother from another mother?

Anyway, any other opinions on whether there could be coverage for extending a sewer line past a property line?
same question:
(If you have a 100' electrical feed, and only 40' is suspended over the insured's lot, can you pay for the other 60' that is suspended over the lot next door?)

Also Goldust-

Will you take me hunting some day? Very few people in California do that - I feel like I've missed out.

Hello Leland,

whereabouts in SoCal do you reside and without getting too much into your business, are you staff or IA ?

Robby :-)

   I have a claim that may help us on points 2 & 3 .

On the Northridge Earthquake I had a claim on a 2,500 sf. home on slab all one level. it was on a hillside  there in encino. the slab was smashed to bits w/ cracks going everydirection. it was also an older slab that the contractor never put a single stick of rebar or any other reinforcement.

  In addition there was a double sided fireplace made from brick that faced both the living room and the master bedroom. it was not damaged.

 it was located almost in the center of the home. The garage also had a slab that was totally split all over because of cracks from the earthquake. The home & garage were slowly sliding down the hillside. Oh yes there was a in ground pool w/ a apron around it that was badly damaged over 50% and the pool was tipped so water ran out the down hillside.

Now if you remember back then they had what was called total replacement cost policies. i remember this home was covered for $275,000.

We jacked the house & garage up 6' put in new slabs w/ rebar ( code Upgrade) .We also had to demo that fireplace then rebuild it after the new slab was installed and house refitted onto slab. We pumped cement mud under pool and brought it up to grade and  installed a new apron around the pool.

 Now there were upgrades that said the home had to be retrofitted w/ 3 caisons to go down to bedrock 30' deep and slab was put on top of the caisons.  The insurance co. was not liable for the $30,000 a piece caisons. The insured had to stand for that amount.

In the end the total repairs came to over $530,000  not including the 3 caisons. The insured couldn't understand why we didn't just give him a check for $275,000. I told him we could. But then I asked him do you have a mortgage on this property which I knew he did from the deck page.

I told him if that check was cut for that amount the lender's name would be on the check which the lender would get and he would still have a broken house. The light came on and he said oHHHHHH ! Well we better fix the house then.

 So you can see the different scenarios of code upgrades and replacing undamaged portions of the structures That are covered.

  Sorry to be so windy but that is how it was done before.

  i would be glad to take you hunting some day after we get done cleaning up  Mathew next August ! LOL

But you can't use those blasted paint guns !  The way I got it figured if you come ,Leland comes and Ray comes,we might not even want guns in camp!

All kidding aside we need to look at each claim on its own merits and give the insured everything he has coming. Nothing more nothing less.

That is how we stay out of that bad word called "Litigation"  !!!

This is kinda off topic, but it seems some of the new people will think you use the thumb rules you have heard and learned and the insurance contract is used as broad outline to settle losses; this is from discussions like we have on CADO. I do not agree. If 1, 2 or 100 adjuster that  make coverage decisions that will close losses with policyholders, lawyers, PA,s  that are "questionable", are doing the right thing.

We all know only the courts and the legislature can make law. The claims departments of property insurance carriers know the grave consequences of making a poor-bad calls. I am talked out on this topic.

responding to Robby:

whereabouts in SoCal do you reside and without getting too much into your business, are you staff or IA ?

I am an IA. I went straight from CAT adjusting Katrina & insurance restoration construction into an IA job. I work with 4 other adjusters and I am the least experienced of the four. I do residential and commercial property with a tiny bit of liability. I do claims over $1million from time to time but most claims are between $20k and $300k. I get a lot of fire losses. I did Hurricane IKE commercial on a sabbatical. Feel free to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about at any time. I enjoy learning the business. I live in Santa Ana.

Chuck- good point- "code" is a big concept. It is not found in one little book. For example local fire codes. It can be difficult to find out what really is "code". Any contractor will tell you that city building inspectors can be wrong about what the code requires. I think usually insurance companies will consider something to be a code requirement if the building inspector says it is. When the dollar amount gets larger then they might ask someone like you to determine if the inspector is right.

Chuck- have you ever seen a claim under the "law & ordinance" coverage denied, when the city said it was required but the carrier proved it was not required by "law or ordinance"?



Robby :-)

Posted By Leland on 23 Sep 2010 11:15 AM

In other words all kinds of things like the coverage for gravestones is in the policy but rarely applies to the typical loss.

Funny you said this, Leland. 

I had a claim from Hurricane Rita on a Mausoleum.  When I first contacted the insured he became upset at me when I asked if this was located on his property (in Texas you can have a family plot on your own property).   Now I first read over the policy and could find no offer of coverage.  I am aware that there is coverage for gravesites offered on some policies.  I spoke with the file reviewer and he also stated that he could find no coverage however was advised by the higher ups that there would be coverage and it was offered under the dwelling.  The payout to the insured for the damage for the Mausoleum was in excess of $40k.  The damage to the insured's dwelling was less than the deductible.  I had only worked the Mausoleum claim.

I would have thought that if there was coverage offered that it would have been under APS with limits.

.