| Author |
 Topic  |
|
golonghorns
USA
2 Posts |
 Posted - 09/22/2003 : 12:03:35
|
| I have claim involving hail damage to portion of HO's roof involving shingle on shingle. Have determined ACV to damaged portion, but HO insists on replacement of the entire roof on the basis that replacement with shingle on decking of damaged portions only will result in repaired portion looking distinctly different then remainder of roof, as well as argument that color of older shingles can't be matched. Replacement cost policy. Any experience with these issues? Thanks. |
|
|
mcaldwell
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2003 : 12:25:31
|
| You do not owe to match. Do carriers offer a matching endorsement? |
 |
|
|
golonghorns
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2003 : 12:51:05
|
| Where does the standard HO-C policy state that? I have never seen a matching endorsement. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2003 : 13:09:30
|
| It doesn't say you don't owe to match, but it also doesn't say you do owe to match. It says you owe to repair or replace damaged property caused by a covered peril. If the other side of the roof is not damaged then you don't owe for it. Seen it several times, never seen it paid for. |
|
|
|
mcaldwell
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2003 : 14:02:34
|
| Just to clarify; I was just kidding about the existance of a matching endorsement. |
|
|
|
JWill
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 17:39:29
|
Extracover
Erie Insurance Group's mid-range package of protection safeguards your:
· Home and any attached structures.
· Other structures at your premises that are separate from the dwelling.
· Personal property wherever it may be.
· Loss of use, which covers the additional living expenses you incur due to temporary relocation.
· Personal liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal injury claims brought against you anywhere in the world.
· Medical payments to others who are injured in an accident arising from your premises or personal activities.
Policy Features
Perils
The Extracover Policy protects your home and other structures. Personal property is protected from damage caused by the following losses:
· Fire or lightning
· Windstorm or hail
· Explosion
· Sonic boom
· Riot or civil commotion
· Aircraft
· Vehicles
· Smoke
· Vandalism or malicious mischief
· Breakage of glass
· Theft
· Falling objects
· Weight of ice, snow or sleet
· Sudden bursting or cracking of a heating or cooling system
· Freezing of plumbing, heating and cooling systems
· Accidental overflow or discharge of water from within the home
· Power surge damage to electrical appliances
· Volcanic eruption
Some perils contain specific exclusions. See the actual policy for the details.
Optional Coverages
Your home is unique and so are your protection needs. Some optional coverages you may choose to add to your Extracover Policy include:
· Replacement cost settlement on personal property
· Sewer or drain back-up
· Incidental business occupancy
· Earthquake coverage
· Scheduled personal property
· Enhancement endorsement
· Expanded endorsement
· Dwelling and other structures siding and/or roofing restoration coverage
Hows that for an endorsement, it is being sold in Illinois.
As for replacement cost,
(b) The replacement cost of that part of the building damaged for like construction and use on the same premises; or
(b) The necessary amount actually spent to repair or replace the damaged building.
|
J. Williams |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 20:25:03
|
| JW, if you have the wordings for the various endorsements that you noted, it would be interesting relative to the topic, to review the wording of the "Enhancement ends't", "Expanded ends't", and the ".... siding a/o roofing restoration coverage ends't"; to see if or how they may aid in solving this age old problem, at least for the EI Group. |
|
|
|
hail_razor
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 20:51:36
|
| The answer to the question depends on several key factors. Roof type, number of layers, percentage of damage as a whole and the roof age/condition. If multiple layers are involved, then replacement of each damaged slope should be recommended so that repairs can be made properly. If at least 75% of the roof as a whole is damaged then it's a for sure total. In regards to matching....Kile hits it right on the head by saying "It doesn't say you don't owe to match, but it also doesn't say you do owe to match." I feel in an honest effort to return the dwelling to its condition prior to the date of loss we owe to "make it look the same as it was." Likewise, that does not mean replacement of the entire roof. The age and condition play a big factor as well because sometimes repairs cant be made without causing more damage. As stated above many factors play part and it is difficult to say unless you were there or you're reviewing the file. And depending on the situation the depreciation amounts will vary. |
|
|
|
JWill
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 09:17:33
|
Clayton, I'm awaiting a fax from the Illinois underwriting dept for Erie and additionally, it appears that this optional coverage is available in the following states:
Illinois,Indiana,Maryland,New York,North Carolina,Ohio,Pennsylvania,Tennessee,Virginia,West Virginia,Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
A suggestion I might offer and have found it very useful in the past, if I need information specific to claims or coverages, I would stop by an agents office and visit for awhile. They can be very helpful in obtaining many things an adjuster might find useful. I find them for the most part excited about helping, they have a geniune concern for their clients.
I'll post the page as soon as I receive it.
***********************Insertion****************
Image Insert:
70.94 KB |
J. Williams |
Edited by - JWill on 12/04/2003 10:33:18 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 11:57:39
|
Thanks, JW and Kile, for pointing out my error. With your bringing it to my attention, and then me sticking my nose up against my monitor to re-read the wording, I edit my post as follows;
Well for sure, this is a good example of a carrier who believes that they don't owe to match for a defined situation; but if you want to, they will sell the match to you.
It would be interesting what the additional premium is for this.
Might be a good buy, if one was resigned to the argument of not owing to match and the consumer has an older home with older exterior finishes within the parameters of the wording.
Example, $600 damage to 5 year old but available vinyl siding on the south side, with a $500 ded - the coverage DOES NOT apply. This then would seem to still allow for the "mismatch" affect and potential unsatisfactory settlement as far as the insured is concerned.
Example, $600 damage to 15 year old and no longer available aluminum siding, with a $500 ded - the coverage DOES apply; if the additional condition is complied with. If, as per the wording, its applicability only occurs if the same siding is no longer available; what would have been done in the absence of the wording? Not only is there a "mismatch" potential but a seemingly absent alternative to effect a logical repair.
At this time, I'm still a bit confused regarding the "mismatch" exclusionary wording. If the siding is available, the coverage doesn't apply; so the "mismatch" exclusion seems redundant. If the siding is no longer available, the coverage would apply, and a "mismatch" would not be an issue. I can't think of an example at this time where the "mismatch" exclusionary wording would come to play in this endorsement.
However, hats off to the EI Group, for coming up with a product that does eliminate part of the problem.
Interesting. I hadn't seen one of these "non-indemnity" types of endorsements for personal lines before, it is an insurance product allowing a consumer to buy-out of defined obsolesence. |
Edited by - CCarr on 12/04/2003 22:01:11 |
|
|
|
JWill
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 15:38:14
|
You might want to re-read the endorsement again Clayton. The endorsement specifically addresses obsolete siding and roofing. It doesn't allow for shingle style siding. However, it doesn't clarify what "wooden siding" is.
As for the premium, I’ll check into that.
|
J. Williams |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 18:16:57
|
| I think you misread it, Clayton. The way I read it the coverage is for replacing the remainder of the undamaged portion if that same exact material is no longer available. It specifically states that the coverage does not apply for weathering, fading or wear and tear. I take that part to mean that if the same exact material is available but doesn not match because of discoloration due to weathering or age then the endorsement does not apply. |
|
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 22:27:03
|
The caveat in the endorsement kicks out the biggest arguement that insureds put forth in that "the new won't match the old, weathered, worn out, etc., etc." Usually said in a whiney voice and followed by "you insurance companies just don't want to pay!"
Unfortunately, since we are the 'face' of the carrier, we are the one who gets the brunt of their displeasure.
Whose responsibility is it to prove that the material is no longer available? How far does someone have to go to obtain the same product? I would maintain that the courts would probably hold it to the standard of "the reasonably prudent person". |
Kevin Hromas |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 23:14:26
|
| Seems like it would be pretty simple for the contractor or adjuster to call the manufacturer and see if the product is still made and if it is who distributes it. If manufacturer cannot be determined and a simple check of 2 or 3 building supply outlets say they can't match it then it probably isn't avaiable. |
|
|
|
Manmut
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 09:44:41
|
| There is a website - www.sidingmatch.com - that specializes in finding siding, both presently available and discontinued siding. Of course, there is a fee, but they will identify your siding sample by manufacturer, series, and color as well as determining its availability. Kind of like an ITEL for siding. I might be using them soon on a claim, and if so, I'll let you know how it works out. |
Patrick W. Laws |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 16:31:19
|
I have used Sidingmatch.com probably 30+ times in the last 3 months working hail storms in the NW suburbs of Chicago. For a $100 fee (negotiated by my company) they get back to me in 3-5 days. All I have to do is send them a full profile sample 8-12 inches wide. I get a report back that states what the siding most likely is, if it is available either from the manufacturer or in a warehouse as discontinued stock, or if the exact siding isn't available, if another company is manufacturing something similiar. They rate the siding on 5 points, 1-5, with 5 being the closest match. I am not on my work computer but I will try to come back by edit next week with the points laid out.
From my experience, only 10% of my files came back with a match. The most common problem was color, and I don't mean fading. If there is no way to match the original color, they suggest painting it and will provide material references, but most homeowners won't go for that (maintenance issues) and I will only force it if they have previously painted their siding.
Are there any major carriers offering this type of endorsement? I am reasonably sure Allstate (my employer) doesn't... at least not in any state that I've worked for them.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
hail claim for damage to portion of HO roof
Forum Locked
