That’s very disheartening and I feel for you.

Others may have better insight to this than I do but I will extend my thoughts. Consequential loss is probably not going to hold. I can give you the general idea of the term by example;

You suffer wind damage to your roof and it is raining. You or someone goes on your roof to put a tarp on the roof and in the process damage tiles that were not otherwise damaged by stepping on the tiles. Or more on point… you have a fire to your building, the firemen come in and use water to put the fire out.. and the water flows to an area that was previously not damaged by fire – but now has water damage. That is the idea behind consequential damages.

In your situation your contents actually suffered a separate and distinct occurrence/loss which is generally not covered under the policy. I am assuming by flood you mean rain water that rose to a level that impinged the POD and not a pipe burst or rain water that came in through the top of the POD.

I’m not quite sure of the “preservation of property” but possibly you mean protecting the property from further damage or “mitigating”. I really don’t know how that would apply in this situation since no damage occurred preserving the property but rather by way of a separate occurrence.

It is tough without seeing your policy as some business policies allow coverage for property while stored on the grounds of the property.

You may also consider discussing this matter with the storage company and read your agreement with them. Thinking very liberally… did they store it in the correct spot? Was it high enough off the ground to keep out normal surface water? What waterproofing methods or guarantees are provided? These PODs are designed to be outdoors so wouldn’t any reasonable person believe that they are going to be able to stand up to the elements?

Just food for thought.

If you have a copy of your renters policy – read it over. If not, get a copy and read it. Many policies require that a “storm created” opening occur first prior to extending coverage for the ensuing rain water damage to the contents. More than likely the policy is what is known as a “named peril” policy for the contents. This means that the item originally causing the damage has to be listed under the “Perils Covered” section of the policy. I surmise that carrier is correct in denying the coverage (assuming it was rain water damage) even if the adjuster/inspector originally stated it was covered. This happens quite a bit believe it or not. Adjusters are often dealing with many different policies and could have believed you had a certain policy.. or simply could be untrained or not knowledgeable of that particular policy and on and on… it’s disappointing but it happens.

If all the facts are as you stated and are correct then I would see what the storage facility is going to do about it. You may have a claim against their roofer for liability.

Thank you for your response. As stated, this is not my policy or case, so my information is second hand. More info can be obtained by reading item #71 in this forum. That was posted in November and more info has come to light since then. For example, ALL claims have been denied based on inconsistencies in EUO testimony (such as locations of items) and, according to at least one of the insurance companies, “irrefutable proof” (their words) that at least one of the occupants had something to do with the fire. Keep in mind it has been over a year since the fire and NONE of the occupants has so much as been questioned by police or fire investigators beyond the initial interrogations. If the insurance company’s investigator uncovers “irrefutable evidence” (that, apparently, the police and fire departments missed), are they not required to turn this evidence over to the police? Obviously it is not that irrefutable.

I admit this is a very complex case and I do not have all the specifics. However, I believe I have sufficient information to draw the following conclusions:
1. Their house burned down.
2. The authorities (police and fire departments) have investigated it.
3. Although I believe the cause has officially been ruled arson, the authorities have thus far uncovered no evidence the residents were involved, otherwise someone would be in jail.
4. Considering modern forensics, the residents, neither individually nor collectively, are intelligent enough to “beat the system”. Therefore the fact that no one has been arrested definitively clears them in my mind.
5. The insurance company has not, apparently, released their “irrefutable proof” to the authorities, otherwise someone would be in jail or it is not that irrefutable.
6. It is a well known FACT that the last thing an insurance company wants to do is pay out a claim, no matter how legitimate. This appears to be one of those situations. The claim amounts exceed what the companies were expecting (especially from renters), therefore they have elected to completely deny the claims as opposed to paying an “adjusted” amount.

BTW, it is my understanding that the fire department’s report is still open.

You definitely have some issues on your claim. Most homeowners policies carry a 1 year statute for you to be able to file suit against your insurance company. Generally the insurance company also considers this the limit in which you can make a claim against them – although that is not entirely true. Unless your claim for Katrina was improperly closed or there is some other mitigating factor, the adjuster is correct – the claim is done. However, the adjuster said you had hail damage. Okay – when? What is the date of loss for the hail damage? Was she saying it was hail during Katrina?

Does your policy exclude hail? I can’t imagine it does. So, you need to find out why it is not covered or why the check was issued in error. I seriously doubt it was retracted because you went out and got other estimates. Homeowners get estimates all the time. This is why adjusters are called adjusters…. because they “adjust” the differences.

Finally, during the time that you were getting estimates, and prior to the adjuster advising you that they were withdrawing the payment, did you do anything such as sign a contract with a contractor, begin work to your home, purchase materials or anything of the sort? If so, it may well be that you can hold the insurance company responsible for “detrimental reliance” in where they acknowledged coverage and caused you to rely on them to your own detriment.

It sounds like it was a devastating fire. In this situation I would assume policy limits were reached. What an adjuster should be looking for in this situation is a list that makes sense. Your mother would need to recollect room by room what was in the house and provide a comprehensive list. If something sticks out like a sore thumb to you… it’s probably going to stick out like a sore thumb to the adjuster.

Your question was one of verification. General items will more than likely not be questioned. Food, the run of the mill clothing, televisions, dvds, players, general electronics, refrigerator, books, and so forth. Questions come in when a policyholder has a list of 200 items from Sears or Target etc., and then all of the sudden they have a painting by Picasso. While it may be true – they’re gonna want to verify that item.

Verification of items while difficult is not impossible. While irritating, it’s not as hard as one might think. Most stores like Best Buy, furniture stores, Sears, keep records of what you purchase and you can go back to them and get a print out. You can also go back over debit purchases, credit card statements, etc. Generally the items that you purchase with cash are not the items that the insurance company is going to want to question.

The adjuster does have to assist in the process. The adjuster may need to hire a demo or salvage company to assist you with verifying items. The adjuster is required to act in an advisory capacity to help you obtain the benefits you are entitled to. But generally in devestating fires like this.. insureds hire a public adjuster to assist them. You should consider doing so. I recently came to this site but it also appears the owner of this site has ebooks to assist in the process which are inexpensive. This is a big loss – get help. There are many more issues besides verifying personal property that might just be beyond your understanding.

Finally, before its too late for your house.. and this goes for everyone – take a half an hour on a Saturday and video your entire house. Take the dvd and copy it and have a friend and a family member hold it for you. Make sure to note items that are unique in your home. This is your best preparedness technique to prove your loss for fire and theft if one of those does occur.