Superstorm Hurricane Sandy
Post Superstorm Hurricane Sandy Claims Questions (below)
The first step in any major property insurance claim is to address the temporary emergency aspect of the situation. This can range from finding temporary lodging and boarding pets to getting a rental car and a cell phone. (The second step is to get a copy of the policy and for you flood policy holders, the adjusters manual – FEMA NFIP Adjuster Claims Manual.pdf 13 MB.)
Below is an excerpt from the “First Moves” section of the UClaim.com eBook entitled “HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE CLAIMS ADVICE AND HELP – ALL ASPECTS – HOW TO PLAY THE GAME – DELUXE VERSION (W/APPENDIX)“ (view table of contents and description) by contributor Ron Cercone founder of UClaim.com, a do-it-yourself insurance claim eBook website. Ron is a semi retired licensed public adjuster representing policy holders, not insurers, in California.
LET THE GAME BEGIN – (YOUR FIRST MOVES)
“Game Plan A” is if you have this guide available from the first day you report your claim.
“Game Plan B” is if your claim has been open for more than a few days up to several years.
Game Plan A (If you have this document from the date of loss)
Loss Day –
The day of the loss, or when you discover the loss, there is not much you can do other than call your insurance agent (the gentleman who sold you the policy) or toll free number for your insurer if your agent is not available. Confirm that you have a home owner’s policy and write down the dollar limits for Structure, Contents and Additional Living Expense. When it comes to all the initial services immediately after a loss, you want the insurance company to select all the “emergency” service contractors of their choice (later you can choose your own contractor for the main structural repair). You want this for two reasons: First, you don’t have the time or emotional inclination to be a rational shopper. Second, if the emergency service vendors make a mistake (and they usually do), the insurer, not you, is responsible because your insurance company recommended them and hired them and probably even paid them direct. If the emergency board up contractor or contents pack out contractor insists you sign their “authorization” paper and it is too cumbersome or lengthy with fine print, just hand write and initial on their paper “I authorize you to protect my property, but my insurance company must authorize the bill for your services.” Put your signature or initials next to that sentence, in addition to the place where their paper is normally signed.
Beware of the few “clever and unscrupulous” insurance company adjusters who will say to you “hire whoever you like and send me the bill”. These type adjusters are usually older “seasoned and trustworthy appearing” adjusters. They know the inherent liability risks of steering their own preferred emergency service contractors to work on your loss. If this clever adjuster resists your request for him to be the one to call out the emergency contractors, fax or email him a polite written request. Remind him that this is an emergency situation and you do not have the time to learn or the expertise to shop for an emergency contractor. If you have no response within 48 hours, fax a request to his supervisor, or if he is an independent adjuster, fax the letter to the adjuster from the insurer who hired him. If still no favorable response in 24 hours, fax a letter to the CEO in the insurer’s home office (You should fax this request, otherwise, if mold later appears, the adjuster will deny you ever requested his expertise). A fax will get more attention than an email and a fax makes better evidence in court.
Tell the agent or customer service that you want the following items in this order:
1. A security guard posted at the house immediately for 24 hours a day until an emergency 8’ fence with barbed wire can be put up. If you can’t reach anyone, or if you get the run around, then …
November 30th, 2012 at 10:02 am #Moderator1
This page was added 11-30-12.
December 4th, 2012 at 9:18 am #thomas sunog
was told by my agent that the sewer/toilet overflow we had that was present during the storm was secondary to the flooding caused by the stormand would not be covered- we do not have flood insurance and understand that we were not covered for flood due to lake, rive,r ocean, etc., flooding- but we have the rider to the policy for water damage caused by
pipes/toilets/etc backing up and this is $5000.00— does what my insurance company says regarding it being secondary thus denying th claim “hold water” (no pun intended)?????
December 4th, 2012 at 5:03 pm #Colleen O.
I was told the sewer back up was covered, but Loss of Use due to the sewer back up was not covered. Is a home without a functioning bathroom habitable?
December 17th, 2012 at 8:25 am #Jason
Thomas sunog,
Yes, their position about the coverage is consistent with how the coverage applies or does not apply.
Colleen O,
Some insurance companies may pay sump pump overflow and sewer backup coverage in cases like this but only on a good will basis because coverage does not apply. Concerning loss of use, a covered cause of loss needs to have caused the damage before the coverage comes into play. Since no covered cause of loss occurred, the loss of use does not apply.
January 18th, 2013 at 9:35 pm #Geoff
Hi – this is a great site and I have lots of good information. After a long exchange and 3 page complaint to our agent, our NYCM insurance adjuster Kim Segal agreed to pay 75% of our fence cost and an additional $600 for the roof on our shed that was distroyed.
And you are right, I could not get a straight answer on what I was able to submit so I put in everything I could think of.
NYCM would not pay for food spoilage because it was due to power going out and they would not pay for the loss of personal property in the car that was totaled by Sandy because it was lost due to flood and they would not pay for my flights home and rental car because they were not directly related to Sandy.
Now we have the check and it is made out to the Mortagage company and us! How do we get the Mortgage company to endorse the check??
And can I complain to the NY insurance board and get more of this claim that I submitted?
February 8th, 2013 at 4:07 pm #Jane
Our home flooded during Sandy causing extreme damage. The water was 3′ inside the first and only floor – we lost all contents – stupidly did not get contents coverage with our flood policy. We noticed after we emptied the house that the floor was not level in the front 6′ of the house and the rear 6′ – both leaning away from the center of the house. There were also large cracks in the same spots on the foundation. The adjuster called in an engineer. She came and looked around and took some photos. Her report stated that the cracks were superficial and that the damage was there for a long time due to the worn edges of the cracks.
We did not buy it and hired our own engineer. He tore apart her report, digging up the footings and finding that they were not superficial but in fact went all the way through the footings. Some additional cracking also happened in between our engineer’s visits. He asked if we had photos pre-storm. We hadn’t even thought of that but remembered that our surveyor took total perimeter photos of the house when we got a flood elevation certificate 4 months prior. The major cracking in the areas of concern were not there before the storm. Selective looked at the report and decided that they were going to go with their own engineer’s report.
After 2 months of emailing, I got a hold of the claims manager. He agreed finally to have their engineer look at our engineer’s report to see what they thought. I thought, “Finally! this is going to work out!”
Last night I received a denial letter stating that even though they agree with our engineer’s report, our structural and foundation damage that our engineer stated was “beyond repair” was not covered due to the “earth movement” exclusion in our policy. They said they asked the NFIP and they said “Differential settlement cannot occur without some movement, consolidation, compaction, or some other mechanical movement of the supporting soils. Our engineer calling it differential settlement does not provide coverage. 5. Destabilization or movement of land that results from accumulation of water in subsurface land area; is the reason it is denied. They also mentioned that our foundation was substandard.
I just don’t understand how a FLOOD policy can exclude items even if they are caused by a FLOOD?!? The flood happened first. Isn’t that the proximate cause of the damage? Their is also no anti-concurrent causation clause (can you tell I’ve been reading 24/7???lol.) Any advice would be greatly appreciated. I am desperate. We cannot afford to rebuild a house without insurance money!!!!!! HELP!
February 8th, 2013 at 5:19 pm #Jason
Jane,
The insurance company has dug it’s heals in and they are not going to budge from their position. The only thing that would make them budge is if a judge ruled against them.
But even if that happened, they could appeal and the entire process could drag on for years and years. It seems a legal approach is the route you would have to take to pursue this further.
The exact language of your policy isn’t known this is fairly common policy language in all homeowner policies under the heading of EXCLUSIONS:
f. Earth Movement — “We” do not pay for loss caused by earth movement whether the earth movement results from or is caused by human or animal forces or an act of nature.
Earth movement means:
1) earthquake;
2) land shock waves or tremors before, during, or after a volcanic eruption;
3) landslide, mudflow, mudslide;
4) subsidence, erosion; or
5) any other earth movement, including but not limited to earth sinking, rising, shifting, expanding, or contracting.
It’s good that you are reading (and understanding) your policy. Everybody should do that because it seems like 95% of people don’t know anything about their homeowner policy other than their deductible. (And sometimes people don’t even know that.)
The insurance company will rely on “any other earth movement”, which encompasses every thing – and will hold onto their position of denial with full force. My personal observation is that you would have an expensive and very steep up-hill battle in front of you to get the foundation covered.
February 8th, 2013 at 5:42 pm #Jane
It is not a homeowners policy though, it is a standard flood policy.
Can any of this help?
This is from the policy:
Coverage is added for damage from the pressure of water against the insured structure with the requirement that there be a flood in the area and the flood is the proximate cause of damage from the pressure of water against the insured structure.
Coverage has been clarified to pay for losses from land subsidence under certain circumstances. Subsidence of land along a lake shore or similar body of water which results from the erosion or undermining of the shoreline caused by waves or currents of water exceeding cyclical levels that result in a flood continues to be covered. All other land subsidence is now excluded.
C. We do not insure for loss to property caused directly by earth movement even if the earth movement is caused by flood. Some examples of earth movement that we do not cover are:
1. Earthquake;
2. Landslide;
3. Land subsidence;
4. Sinkholes;
5. Destabilization or movement of land that results from accumulation of water in subsurface land areas; or
6. Gradual erosion.
We do, however, pay for losses from mudflow and land subsidence as a result of erosion that are specifically covered under our definition of flood (see II.A.1.c. and II.A.2.).
What flood losses are covered?
The Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) Forms contain complete definitions of the coverages they provide. Direct physical losses by “flood” are covered. Also covered are losses resulting from flood-related erosion caused by waves or currents of water activity exceeding anticipated cyclical levels, or caused by a severe storm, flash flood, abnormal tidal surge, or the like, which result in flooding, as defined. Damage caused by mudflows, as specifically defined in the policy forms, is covered.
This is some other info I found. Would any of these apply?
Concurrent causation principles say that if two causes combine to produce loss or damage, and one of the two causes is excluded (e.g. flood) and the other cause is covered (e.g. windstorm), the loss will be covered.
Sabella established that when more than one cause is sequentially involved in a loss, the court must determine the single cause that set into motion the other causes or chain of events leading to the damage. In that case, a building contractor negligently installed a sewer line to a house it constructed on uncompacted fill. The sewer ruptured and flowed water into the fill, which settled under the house, cracking the foundation. The insurer denied coverage due to an earth movement exclusion. The court found that because the “efficient moving cause” (builder’s negligence) was covered, the loss or damage was covered, even though an intervening cause (earth movement) was expressly excluded, because the efficient moving cause set in motion the intervening cause.
I know I’m grasping…
February 8th, 2013 at 6:16 pm #Jason
Jane,
The wording in the flood policy wording your provided are pretty much the same exclusions of the regular policy regarding earth movement.
It is likely the policy language in the flood policy also contains words similar to these found in a regular homeowner policy:
EXCLUSIONS THAT APPLY TO PROPERTY COVERAGES
1. “We” do not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by one or more of the following excluded causes or events. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of other causes or events that contribute to or aggravate the loss, whether such causes or events act to produce the loss before, at the same time as, or after the excluded causes or events.
So this wording relates directly to concurrent causation. Policies are worded that if an uncovered cause occurs with a covered loss, the entire loss is excluded. The policy language let’s the exclusion trump everything if even a small part of the loss is excluded and most of it is covered.
The case you mentioned makes sense why the judge would rule that way but there are other judges that would have ruled opposite of that. It’s not a fair game for people that are denied and the insurance company is firm in their position of no coverage.
February 16th, 2013 at 8:39 am #Jay frederick
my flood ins. has alloted me $475 for a vanity. The vanity I want to put in will cost $800. I dont mind putting in the extra $325 to make sure the bathroom looks right. Since i will have to have a final inspection before I get my ins. check cashed by the bank, how do I show I spent the extra cash on the vanity out of my own pocket. Jay
February 16th, 2013 at 9:24 am #Jason
Jay,
Send a copy of the receipt or invoice for the vanity to the bank. Your bank will not care if you paid more so that should not be something you need to do.
February 17th, 2013 at 3:22 pm #Jane
Jason,
Would like your opinion on the following information that I dug up that might help us with the earth movement exclusion I posted the other day?
In FEMA’s Adjustment Claims Manual under “special adjustment issues” there is, in fact coverage for foundations that settle as long as we can prove the flooding caused it?
On page V-23:
Note: The adjuster should recognize and immediately report potential structural instability of the insured property to the WYO Company and recommend a qualified expert conduct an on-site inspection of the insured building. The expert should provide a comprehensive report detailing the cause and effect of the settlement/subsidence including photographs of the structure to the WYO Company that will assist in making the necessary determination as to whether or not damage is a direct physical loss by for from flood.
Additionally, on page VIII-9:
R. FOUNDATIONS
Floods can cause significant foundation damage, but so can settlement, improper construction, earth movement, tree roots, and sinkholes. Many times an insured will claim normal settlement cracks in slabs and foundations as flood related. The insured will indicate that he or she never noticed the foundation and slab damage until after the flood. This neither proves nor disproves that the damage resulted from flood.
Most slab and foundation damage occurs because of a lack of moisture in the ground. The soil shrinks away from the foundation, allowing the grade beams to settle downward under the supported weight. This results in a bowing effect and cracks. Excess water in the ground exerts upward pressure on the slab floor and inward pressure on the subgrade foundation walls. This also results in cracks and displacement. Damage of this kind is considered the result of hydrostatic pressure and is not covered under the SFIP, unless there is a general condition of flooding in the area.
Flooding with sufficient water movement to carry the subsoil away (scouring) from the slab or foundation walls generally leaves visible signs. Claims for foundation damage without any visible indication of scouring or land subsidence bear close scrutiny. Most foundation and slab damage that occurs without any visible signs of soil displacement may have resulted from causes other than flooding and is not covered by the SFIP. The adjuster must carefully check the perimeter and underneath the building for soil washout from velocity water flow. When finding no indication, the adjuster must resist a claim for foundation damage. The insured then has the responsibility to prove that the damage was caused by flood. Use of structural engineers must be limited to losses with visible indications of flood damage or of floodwaters’ having exacerbated preexisting damage.
DD. SEEPAGE AND HIGH WATER TABLE
The SFIP does not provide coverage for losses related to high water tables or seepage unless there was a general condition of flooding in the area.
I also located an NFIP Post Flood Handout for Agents that is included with NFIP training sessions by H2O Partners (co selected by FEMA to train agents and adjusters). It was dated 12/12/12. It states on page 22 that under the list of exclusions (earth movement included), that the EXCEPTION is if flooding is the proximate cause of the damage!
Would any of this help? Any advice?
February 17th, 2013 at 5:16 pm #Jason
Jane,
A basement needs exterior pressure on the outside of it (dirt/soil). When that soil is dry, there is an outward pressure (negative pressure on all the basement walls and even the foundation floor). An ideal pressure would always be zero with downward pressure only from the weight of the structure but this doesn’t happen.
It is unclear if you have a slab or a full basement. Excess moisture (positive pressure) or dry soil (negative pressure) will occur at higher degrees of fluctuations at the perimeter of a slab and then will be gradually less moving toward the slab’s center. The variance of pressure could be negative at the bottom of the wall and positive at the top of the wall at the same time, or vice versa. These varying pressures happen in a cyclical manner with flood water events, wet seasonal conditions, and dry seasonal conditions.
When that soil is water saturated, the excess water creates an inward pressure on the foundation floors and walls. The positive and negative pressures on your foundation are cyclical in nature depending on the moisture level in the ground outside and under the foundation. These pressure changes occur many, many different times through the lifespan of the foundation. The information in your last post based on the policy language indicates that this condition is not covered.
In your first post, you said, “The major cracking in the areas of concern were not there before the storm.” This statement leads one to believe there were small cracks in the foundation previously but now there are major cracks that were observed after the storm. If this statement is true, then the proximate cause of the foundation damage is the cyclical negative and positive pressure that happens over a period of time due to changing soil moisture levels.
If the cracks (including small ones) were not in your foundation prior to the storm and flooding and they were the result of the flooding that was similar in nature to erosion (scouring) due to water movement, then the policy language noted above places the burden of proof on you. That means not only do you have to claim that scouring took place, it means that you have to prove that damage by a preponderance of evidence. This is the lowest level of proof required and basically means that you have to prove that it happened by scouring at proof of 51% or more.
It is important to let you know that the erosion, if not sudden, would not be covered based on flood insurance exclusions. It appears that unless flood water scouring caused your foundation condition, all other causes are excluded.
Only you are able to determine if you have a case that needs to be pursued. If your company continues to deny, you would need an attorney and have the court determine if you are able to prove the foundation damage is a covered loss. If you want me to review your engineer’s report and provide some feedback based on that, you can attach it to an e-mail in orange lettering at the top of this page.
April 28th, 2013 at 6:55 am #Donna
Hi my husband owes a little truck company with Two trucks. During Sandy at the last minute we decided to move all of belongs from our house onto one of his trucks. He parked it on a bridge right next to our house to keep an eye on it. Unfortunately it too got hit with water and the insurance company will not cover it because it was not at it’s prinical garaging location. Any idea how to fight this or do we need a lawyer? If a lawyer is there a good chance to win.
Thanks
April 28th, 2013 at 9:18 am #Jason
Donna,
Personal property is covered anywhere in the world. In fact, when you remove property due to impending loss from where it is usually stored, the policy removes nearly every single exclusion that applies to personal property. It seems you guys did everything right and the insurance company is penalizing you for it.
Your insurance company should pay this. If they continue to deny, get an attorney to help you sue for coverage. Your position would probably prevail in court.
June 28th, 2013 at 4:21 am #Soni M
Hi,
Some 20-30 shingles flew off of our roof during super storm sandy. A few days later a roofer knocked on our door and said he could replace the missing shingles. We agreed and all was ok until last night when my roof started leaking. Can I now submit a claim for the roof to be fixed/replaced as the cause was Sandy, although we did not submit a claim at that point? Will the insurance company pay for the roof now?
Thanks
June 28th, 2013 at 7:53 pm #Jason
Soni M,
You would have to make a claim and let the insurance company investigate. It seems the minimum remedy is to have the roof repaired. Perhaps the only remedy is to replace it. I don’t know. You should let the insurance company know when the damage happened, what you did to minimize damage (temporary repair) and go from there.
Claims should be made in a timely fashion. Due to the circumstannces of your claim, making a claim right now seems reasonable with the current information you have.
January 18th, 2014 at 7:11 am #Rino
We put in a claim with our home owners insurance for sewer back-up during superstorm sandy, we were denied. Our surrounding neighbors with other insurance companies received the max, $5,000, for their sewer back up. During the storm I walked around with my phone taking video of the back up, I sent a video of the toilet gushing water. The deniel was that the back up was caused by the flood waters in the street.
I had a public adjustor handling this and after the denial he suggested sending a letter to the dept of insurance and the governor.
Any advice?
January 18th, 2014 at 8:37 pm #Jason
Rino,
Your neighbor’s have nothing to do with your claim or your insurance coverage.
No advice other than you will be wasting your time by sending a letter to the dept. of insurance and the governor – and thinking anything will result because of writing. The department of insurance’s primary purpose is to make sure the insurance industry remains intact and in business so the department of insurance has an on-going industry in which they can provide oversight and support. Getting customer complaints is low on their priority and it only gives them a gauge on whether they have to focus on certain company’s exposure or conduct. The department of insurance supports the insurance industry and all the insurance companies and does very little for the people who are insured.
I don’t know why the public adjuster would tell you to write to the governor. He might as well have told you to write to santa claus or Madonna. You would not get a response from any of them.
February 4th, 2014 at 7:43 am #Danielle
I’m pretty certain I already know the answer to this but figured no harm in asking! Our house has been in foreclosure for a while now (it is a second home, but was originally a primary property.) and the bank has assumed responsibility for repairs and maintenance on it for a while now (way before Sandy!). Unfortunately, we too, experienced about five feet of flooding on the first floor, which, in our case is the basement. We have ZERO money to put into this house, let alone enough money to survive, as I became disabled and my husband was out of work (after several failed businesses due to the economy) for 5 years. My husband and the mortgage bank worked together on getting the repairs to the house done to make sure nothing else was ruined. Btw, the bank held the insurance on the house and did not purchase contents coverage. As Sandy took out so many homes, and with much more substantial damage than ours, it took over a year to get paid on and fix the problems in our house due to the flooding. There is still, to this day, a terrible mold problem that was NOT taken care of! Due to this delay, we cannot recover ANY of the items in our home since the mold spores are now throughout the entire house! Obviously we didn’t have separate contents insurance as it would have been a choice between that and food. My question is, (as I used to any, MANY years ago, sell insurance) since the bank took over responsibility for the house and it took that long to repair, is there any responsibility on the bank’s or the insurance company’s part (care, custody and control) for them to be liable for the contents – the only things left of value that we could have possibly sold, to become a bit more financially stable? We are talking about a house who’s value is still nearly $2 million dollars, and whose contents are very high quality. It upsets me to this day to even think about it and I’m trying desperately not to because as I said, I’m pretty certain I already know the answer. I’m just looking for a little ray of light. Thanks very much. I appreciate your help!
Warm (DRY!) regards,
Danielle
February 4th, 2014 at 9:05 am #Jason
Danielle,
The mortgage company and bank have absolutely no obligation to you regarding your personal property. The phrase is care, custody, or control, and does not contain the word “and”.
In reality, all of the care, custody, or control of the home and personal property belongs to the owner of the property. A mortgage holder has custody of the mortgage – the mortgage is a piece of paper that says the house is collateral for a loan and nothing more. I’m certain the mortgage holder is protecting that piece of paper in their possession. The mortgage does not apply to personal property. It never did and it never will. So does the insurance company have care, custody, or control of the your property? Not even close.
If you have a standard and common insurance policy for the home and personal property where you currently live, this policy part may apply:
b. Limitation On Property At Residential Premises Other Than The Described Location — Coverage for personal property usually on residential premises of an “insured” other than the “described location” is limited to 10% of the Coverage C “limit” or $1,000, whichever is greater.
The although this is limited coverage for property you own at another residence, the cause of loss to the property must first be one that is covered by your policy.
A standard insurance policy will allow up to 5% debris removal coverage, but only for covered causes of loss. Based on what you’ve posted, the mostly likely cause of loss is something that is excluded in a standard insurance policy with the following language:
6) Water, Humidity, Moisture, Or Vapor — “We” do not pay for loss caused by:
a) continuous or repeated discharge, seepage, or leakage of water; or
b) the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture, or vapor;
over a period of weeks, months, or years…
Other than the Water, Humidity, Moisture, Or Vapor exclusion in a standard homeowner policy, the policy limits the causes of damage to personal property to a handful of events such as Explosion, Windstorm or Hail, vehicles, fire, and appoximately 11 other causes – none of which seem to apply based on the information you provided. A standard homeowner insurance policy will further list other exclusions that seem to apply to your situation, and since there are many, I’m not even going to address those.
You said, “…since the bank took over responsibility for the house and it took that long to repair…”. Although you indicate the bank took over the house, you still had the option to remove the personal property before it became mold infected. Another exclusion in a standard policy is that the owner has this obligation:
b. Protecting Property — All reasonable measures must be taken to protect covered property at and after a covered loss to avoid further loss.
Since the personal property is damaged, (whether covered or not) it does not appear that “reasonable measures” were taken. (This is only my observation.)
In summary, this doesn’t look good for you to have even a little ray of hope.
June 11th, 2014 at 1:15 pm #Angelina
We incurred damage from the floods in Pensacola. Have been back and forth with the adjuster. He submitted an initial offer covering the floors in half the house, but not the other half. We fought him, he came back for a re-inspection, now we’re being told that an engineer is going to have to come out and that everything is in question now.
1 – is this normal?
2 – it’s been 6 weeks since the flood and there is mold present in our home, we have a 2 year old son. Is there any way to expedite this or are there requirements to complete the claim in a timely manner when mold is present?
Thank you for your help!
June 11th, 2014 at 8:35 pm #Jason
Angelina,
You are the homeowner and happen to have a young child in your home. If the conditions are deteriating in your home, it is up to you to take action to protect your property and the health of your family. You cannot rely on an insurance company to inspect, re-inspect, and provide delayed results before you take corrective action.
Whether your insurance pays it or not isn’t what is important. Protecting your property and your family’s health is what is important. Don’t let the indecision of an insurance company effect what you do with the water damage to your home.
As for question #1 – Yes this is normal for one to question the damage of another when it comes to their property. It is an accepted practice to send an engineer to clarify the differences and come to a conclusion based on facts and professional advice.
No, mold is not a determining factor in which time-frame claims get settled. As a homeowner, it is your responsibility to get rid of mold in your home. If your insurance pays or reimburses that expense is one end result that may occur. The other is your insurance won’t pay for that cost. Regardless of who eventually pays, the repairs are needed to repair a home you own and that is a homeowner responsiblity.
August 22nd, 2014 at 3:57 am #Pamela marvin
I am on the Board of our condo complex. We had our dock wrecked during Sandy. We had insurance and are in the process of rebuilding, but the insurance company is refusing to pay for professional oversight of the construction. The Board does not feel qualified to do this task. Is construction management a legitimate cost covered by replacement insurance?
Thanks,
Pam
August 23rd, 2014 at 9:52 am #Jason
Pamela,
Professional oversight and construction management are the terms you referenced as the costs the insurance company won’t pay.
The oversight of a construction project is undertaken by the project leader or supervisor of the company the board hires. The costs you referenced are already in the cost of the project. To get and pay for another person to make sure the project goes smoothly is redundant. If the members of the board are not qualified to hire a competent contractor to rebuild the dock, then that would be the cost of the condo association.
January 10th, 2017 at 9:24 pm #Sue Brennan
Im just racking flood info to get documentation pertaining to how long i must keep flood insurance receipts I recall 5 years but csnt find it in writing got flooded 6 years ago threw them out floodex sgain ins co wont pay out until they see old receipts! Need proof its 5 years
June 8th, 2018 at 11:32 am #Marilou Wrobleski
Last yr our brand new rv needed repairs under warranty. Man came he ordered parts and had them sent to him. Hurricane came he told us his bldg gone and so are our parts. We contacted rv company who adv they sent him parts and now in order to do these repairs we have to pay for parts since he had them sent to him and never did repairs is he responsible he told us this is our problem not his
June 8th, 2018 at 12:06 pm #Jason
Marilou,
It appears the parts were already provided for your warranty repairs.
It turned into a contract with the repairer and you and he didn’t perform the repairs. Apparently he no longer has the parts for the repair. In order to get the repairs done, you will need to purchase the parts and have them replaced.
What others options do you think might be available to you? You may want to discuss your situation with your insurance agent who insures the RV to determine if you have a claim that you can file for the parts.
There may be coverage available for the parts under your homeowner policy since personal property is covered regardless of where it is in the world (policy restrictions may limit what is covered though.)