|Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2000 - 12:09 pm: |
Murphy,,,the policies I've seen require LKQ. Is the roof thats on there now "used"????. Do you have a dog in the fight???? Why would the policy "owe" a betterment??????
|Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2000 - 4:50 pm: |
there are different degrees of damage; like a fender bender compared to a total. but, the bottom line is, damage is damage. why are some companies totalling the asbestos roofs and some not??? they, obviously, dont want the liability problem anymore and are wise in getting rid of the asbestos. the repaired or non repaired asbestos roofs are starting to leak, shingles are slipping off the slopes, all kinds of cracks being missed by the naked eye........come on guys. damage is damage; pay for it now or pay for it later.
where in the policy does it require the insured or roofers, for that matter, to use USED materials to repair the roofs???? Is that to be practiced for ASBESTOS only??? If you owned a $150,000 home with an asbestos roof down here, how would you feel about that??
|J.P. Theriot (Jpt)|
|Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2000 - 12:05 am: |
In New Orleans I have had several Asbestos tile roofs, either Dutch Lap or Hex, with minimal damage requiring only replacement of a number of shingles. There are several roofers in the area who have saved tiles from previous replacement roofs that weren't broken and are using them to make repairs. Depending on the roof and # of tile, the rate to change has been between $50 to $150 per tile.
We have two seperate P.E.s advise us that if the tile is not actually broken, it doesn't need to be replaced. The majority of the hail hits merely knocked the mold and mildew off of the tile surface without actually damaging the roof.
|Jim Flynt (Jim)|
|Posted on Friday, May 05, 2000 - 1:45 pm: |
daBear, I was not suggesting for even one moment that YOU would call the bad old Insurance boys from the State Commissioner's Office. BUT, you know how some of these insureds can be, and who knows, one of them might just decide to send an anonymous letter........Mmmmmmm had you thought about THAT?
Know before you go,,,,,
|Posted on Friday, May 05, 2000 - 1:27 pm: |
Well I wouldn't do anything like that....calling the bad ole Department of Insurance. I wouldn't doooo that. uh mmmm...
Anyway, some interesting websites I have come across lately. I have nothing to do with this so don't jump on me. BUT gemhound has changed to www.insurancejustice.com there is www.badfaithinsurance.org and of course (close your eyes ladies) www.statefarmsucks.com
Amazing what they do have out there on the world wide web. And of course...
Know before you go...
|Jim Flynt (Jim)|
|Posted on Friday, May 05, 2000 - 10:19 am: |
daBear, if the carrier is arbitrarily and capriciously deciding coverage based SOLELY on who or which adjuster is assigned a particular file, then YES, there would be no question that the actions of that carrier are in "bad faith." Were an insured to become aware of such capricious actions, I would think there would be a legal predicament for the carrier which perhaps they did not anticipate.
Bad faith is bad policy for anyone to engage in, and when detected there is generally a fairly steep price to pay for engaging in such reckless and unwarranted behavior.
A letter to the Insurance Commissioner in that state is likely to change this type of behavior, and change it rather quickly.
|Posted on Friday, May 05, 2000 - 10:04 am: |
They can be repaired, but the point is that the determining factor on replacement is not the damage inflicted on the roof, but who the files was assigned to. Seems like textbook bad faith to me, but what do YOU think? Is it or isn't it?
know before you go
|Posted on Friday, May 05, 2000 - 7:37 am: |
Can you still buy asbestos tiles to effect repairs to a marginally damaged roof? If so, where and how much per square/bundle? Seems to me tiles would be extremely difficult to match even if you were able to locate a source. In today's insurance claims-conscious world, I am always amazed that some carriers refuse to pay for roofs that obviously need replacement or make adjusters jump through fire to justify easily visible damages (how many colors of chaulk do we really need to carry anyway!). It only takes a couple of old-school mentalities at a carrier to determine the "pay or not pay" attitude of the company. Seek out those companies that pay claims and service the policyholder. You'll sleep better at night and always be aware of why you became a property adjuster in the first place!
|Jim Flynt (Jim)|
|Posted on Thursday, May 04, 2000 - 3:15 pm: |
daBear, I am not surprised that the carrier is paying for damages to these roofs; in fact since there are no policy exclusions for an asbestos roof, I would see where they would have no choice but to pay for repair or replacement.
I am surprised however, as you are, that they are playing games such as you describe. I think I would share your disgust with such a feeble and unfair way of their trying to save a buck.
As you say so eloquently, "know before you go."
|Posted on Thursday, May 04, 2000 - 2:34 pm: |
Down in the Southland, there are lots of roofs made out of asbestos tile. Insurance companies hate asbestos. Makes them nervous and cranky.
We heard the other day that a certain well known insurance carrier had decided to pay for hail damages on these types of roofs. Some are repairable and some aren't. We also heard that the IA's working the storm were prohibited from paying for roof replacement under any circumstances due to the "break point" in the billing schedule. The word was that only a staff adjuster could pay to replace a roof.
It thus appears that the determining factor here is not therefore the actual damage sustained by the insured, but whether a staff or independent was assigned the loss. Now I know there are some carriers out there that like to "control independent adjuster fees", but doesn't this sound like the kind of thing that the State Department of Insurance is there to prevent?
How bout it guys, are you as outraged by that as I am?
Know before you go...