| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
 Posted - 12/30/2002 : 09:34:29
|
| Jennifer, you do a great job, and you can type too. I'm like a mule with boxing gloves, and it shows. You must have the same policy as I, the two thousand model. |
 |
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 11:27:58
|
I have had this puzzle in my head and it may go along with this thread or maybe another new one.
I have thought about all the eyesores in the small towns caused by fire, collapse or some other disaster.
The joining construction, where two structures share the same wall. You see the same thing in bigger cities with row houses. I know city ordinances play a big part in this, but it appears this would be an insurance nightmare.
Can someone come up with a claims scienerio with some clues, sometime in the future. This has got to be something that some have seen or worked.
I ran into this in Ghostbuster country while building a newspaper office that had bitter enemies as good neighbors, seems the editor had exposed the Banker as a crook. It took me about three days to make friends with the banker without bringing the beast out in the editor.
Most people will excuse some trespass if you never take sides and make it known. (People skills 101)
What happens in claims when the wall is no longer used jointly, how ever it is an eye sore right on the line?
After the occurance how would the wall be insured if the vacant lot is turned into a parking lot or was not built on? This is of intrest to me if others would like to start a new thread later thats fine.
Pardon my straying from the subject of good neighbor clause. |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 19:30:28
|
Jim, I use this portion of the policy to show the insured why they are not responsible when their tree falls onto the neighbor's property. The tree typically fell over because of wind and saturated ground (Mother Nature). I also explain that it goes both ways. Unless they have been harping on the neighbor to remove their rotted, inspect infested tree then no liability should exist.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 21:27:09
|
Two single family units (townehomes) share a common roof. One unit owner files a justified hail claim, the other unit owner does not care to file or has no coverage for his portion of the roof. What is a adjuster to do? Split it right down the middle, measure for a allowance onto the non covered roof to make sure the covered roof is fully roofed over. Since these two roofs are not going to match in appearence or quality because of age can the unit owner (unit owners carrier) who files his justified claim be liable to replace the now non matching section of his neighbors roof. Seem like you could almost make the Good Neighbor Clause fit this scenario.
P.S. What if this new seam in the adjoining roofs now cause the non replaced roof to leak inside the neighbors home. Where does the liability lie so to speak. |
Edited by - Wes on 12/30/2002 21:34:43 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 21:44:42
|
The good neighbor clause would not apply here because the insured did not CAUSE the damage.
(Causation by the insured is ESSENTIAL, by definition, to TRIGGER the good neighbor clause coverage extension).
In this situation, the adjuster handles the claim by dividing the roof as closely as possible to reflect interior ownership and pays for repair or replacement of the insured's portion of the roof.
The question of whether or not the adjoining property owner repairs or replaces or whether both sides match or there is consequential damage is of no consequence or concern to the adjuster.
Adjust the claim you are assigned (half of a townhouse roof), inspect and estimate damages for 'your' half, close the file, and let the two adjoining property owners worry about the details of repair or replacement, matching, or consequential damages.
Simply, it's their problem, not yours! |
Edited by - JimF on 12/30/2002 21:58:26 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 22:07:35
|
Hi Wes, there is no 'good neighbour' clause or anything else good about the situation you describe.
First, I suggest no two single family townhouse / rowhouse units share a single 'common' roof with their individual ownership of their respective units. Up here in snow valley, if the townhouse development is not a registered condo, or purely a rental building, then the units are individualy owned and called 'freehold' units under our property law.
You see a fair bit of what you describe in the 25 - 35 year old townhouse freehold developments, or even with semi-detached two family units; with or without a claim entering the picture.
If there is no claim, and someone feels they need new roofing, and they don't ask their adjoining neighbour if they want to do their part of the roof also, or if the neighbour says no; and the 'preventative maintenance' type guy goes ahead - you see what you have described, which stands out like senior citizens in plaid lined up for the early bird at Denny's.
You have to split it down the 'middle', i.e. only the insured's owned unit roof covering, every occupancy structure like you speak of has a common wall dividing the units - old, old ones only have the common wall to the attic, and newer ones with the common wall to code as a firewall at least to the interior roof line, if not 2 brick courses extended past the exterior roof line - this is the 'middle' you are looking for.
I suggest you would not measure for, nor allow any more extra, than if you were picturing that "1/2" as a separate roof.
There is no insurance provision, and no property law requirement (at least not in Maple Leaf valley), that I am aware of that in any way obligates the insured by law to be involved in any way with the 'other' roof. Remember an insurance policy is a two party indemnity contract only, between the carrier and the insured, and other than negligent accidental acts of the insured; the insurer could care less about the other unit owner that is not replacing his owned portion of the roof.
Woops, sorry, I didn't realize Jim had responded (and with a more to the point reply) while I was pounding with my four fingers. Looks like we said the same thing. |
Edited by - CCarr on 12/30/2002 22:12:10 |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 22:56:20
|
| Thanks to both of you for the information and advice. I have only run into this situation once but as I was up there scoping I had a million scenarios going thru my head about how this situation could be troublesome in some way or another. I settled it exactly as the two of you advised tho and split it right down the middle, hopefully along the common wall. I see these types of roofs with two obviously different ages of shingles quite a bit down here in the Sunshine State as I drive down the highway. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Where In The World OR Howdy Neighbor
Forum Locked
