can you force your insurance company to pay for damages they

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 01:56 am Post Subject:

I don't get that, so did they want you to scale a 20 foot tree and knock the snow off it, does that makes sense, are they going to pay on the home owners when you fall out of the snow covered tree and break an arm or a leg?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 05:27 am Post Subject:

Perhaps you could mention the actual reason they excluded coverage from the 1st claim. Not removing snow from a tree is not excluded under any policy.

If your policy covers actual cash value as opposed to replacement cost, then depreciation would apply. I think what they then mentioned was a way that you could use the money you received and still make all of the repairs... you'd also still have much of a brand new roof instead of an entire old one.

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:55 am Post Subject:

tscope do they really want people climbing trees and risking injury? that is kind of silly don't you think, especially if the person is older or sickly.

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:27 pm Post Subject:

I could see an insurance company expecting you to do this or hiring someone to come in and do it for you if you were not physically able to. They expect you to keep maintenance up and trimming trees is part of the maintenance.

I am sorry that this has happen to you twice now dadummy, have you considered discussing other options or coverages with your insurance company? Have you considered changing insurance companies. Sometimes it seems we get what we pay for.

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 01:05 pm Post Subject:

Wait a minute...I cannot see any insurance company saying or denying a claim because there was snow on the tree that fell...if it was dead and you knew it was dead...different story....please explain that in greater detail...tcope explained the depreciation....most policys give you the option to add a replacement cost endorcement for your personal property.

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 04:42 pm Post Subject:

tscope do they really want people climbing trees and risking injury? that is kind of silly don't you think, especially if the person is older or sickly.

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 05:04 am Post Subject:

The OP mentioned trailer in their post. In a previous life I handled many mobile home claims for one of the larger insurers for mobile homes. Most of the policies are ACV and when they are RCV they don't explain it very well to the insured (if at all). 9 times out of 10 the insured never received a copy of their policy as the insurance was most of the time just rolled into the mortgage (mortgage placed). It seemed like they hoped most people would take the ACV and make the repairs they could and never call back.

They paid for damages only.... no matching. For example, if you had damage to a bedroom wall they fixed the wall and only painted or wallpapered that wall, with no concern for matching. They were very strict on maintenance. However I never saw them deny a claim due to snow on a tree. Snow build up on a carport or awning sure, but not a tree.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 05:21 pm Post Subject:

My hubby used to do repair work for an insurance company years ago. I did see the work orders occasionally.What you said is correct Dasfuk.They do that just the way you said it. Thing is I seem to remember that the customer has to be satisfied also.

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 01:27 am Post Subject: The problem as I see is that their are not enough agents.

Just a rant and my opinion and a little history with a dash of marketing.

Since the advent of online insurers, few people have real agents to help them understand their policies, although you may have a local insurance broker. There was a day when agents had some clout if they had a sizeable number of policy holders and appreciated helping their insureds. They could move a claim along, or unclog a restriction in the pipeline. They could even make some claims people dance to their tune, but no longer.

I have to chuckle everytime I see these commercials that the agent runs out and scuba dives and rescues the drivers belongings who drove into a pond, or the one where the agent went out and found an identical replacement vehicle for one of his policy holders. Maybe it happens, but not very often if at all. But good commercials sell insurance. Who would think ten years ago you would be buying insurance based on advice from a lizard or caveman.

Today if you even have an agent, they generally, just forward you a policy and if you file a claim, they say don't you have our 800 number that steers you, I mean helps you start your claim? They call it streamlining the process. Insurers use to have appraisers and adjusters in nice office buildings in most larger cities and you could even drive in for an estimate or they could come to your shop of choice in a matter of hours or a few days. Now if you do not use their preferred shop, it is suggested that you may not see an appraiser to view your vehicle for weeks. Subtle steering? Because business people and bean counters and a few entrepeneurs discovered you don't really need all those claims people and support staff and buildings, property, or vehicles and we certainly don't need agents when they can market insurance online.

Many policy holders never get a hard copy of their policies, they get a web address with a pin number to get into the company site, to look at their policies. Gee you don't suspect these companies begin to see patterns when people actually use these sites to calculate their future risks with that policyholder do you? When they do get a hard copy or get to the site with their policy, I would be willing to venture a guess that less than twenty percent actually are able to comprehend the coverage.

By now, many would probably come to the conclusion that I am anti insurance. This is far from true. I am pro insurers paying everything they owe to third party claimants and first party insureds with respect to their policies or liabilities. One large Insurance Company is under court order to turn over internal documents in Missouri and Florida, that purportedly show how some insurers, deny, delay, and force policyholders to hire attorneys to pay claims they know they owe. It's even suggested they put on the boxing gloves to handle persistent policy holders or claimants. I think they are paying like 25,000 dollars a day fine for refusing a court order claiming that it is proprietary information when the contents of the book are available to the public through many sources.

One company used to deny claims in Colorado, and their motto was "we'll pay that claim when pigs fly." The claims office had a flying pig model on display. A judge order the pig removed and for that company to start paying claims and ordered a watchful eye on their claims handling tactics.

These are only a few examples and I am sure there are more. These are the types of claims people that give bad raps to honest claims people that are trying to help people here and elsewhere.

The concept of Insurance began in the medievel ages. A king would give a parcel of land to the paupers and farmers to tend and in exchange, the family that worked the land, kept a part of that crop and the majority went to the King to redistribute.

When one of these workers fell ill or became unable to tend his parcel the king would support them until such time they could return to their labor and not lose their small farms.

The concept of insurance was that many shared the risk and all were able to benefit. Today with the aid of computers and bean counters, the risk is calculated to a fine frog hair and if you are considered a potential risk you can not obtain coverage or pay at a higher price if you can afford it at all. If you live in a certain zip code or your credit score his high even though you may be a millionaire, your rates could be higher.

You may be penalized if you use your insurance or the threat of canceling or non renewal is suggested so that you will not use your coverage. Your deductible is so high that, many claims are not worth turning in. With these factors in minds, the insurance industry has been able to profit in the neighborhood of 55 billion annually by investing your premiums and possibly underpaying many claims that were owed.

If at anytime you do not understand your policy or understand that there are limits and exclusions, deadlines and restrictions, and you don't have an agent and you don't talk lizard or cavemanspeak, or you don't want to talk to someone in a foreign accent regarding your claim, look for an insurer that still has agents that will expain your policy to you. And if that is not possible, I recommend when an appraiser or adjuster tells you that something is not covered or it is excluded, make them put it in writing so that their will be no misunderstanding and you can research your claim or policy to verify those statements. We can't all have a Blacks Law Dictionary on our desks to interpret all the different states rules and policies or statutes and case law that affects them.

If all that fells, at least you found some helpful folks here.

Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 02:05 am Post Subject: forced to cut down tree

my ins. co is giving me until the 12th of June to cut down 2 trees near the house. These trees have been here for 50 years or more . I have read my policy and dont see any stipulations about how far away a tree can be to a structure. I could understand trimming back the limbs, but that wont do for them they want the trees gone. Problem is there is no place to fell it. There is a gas tank in one direction, a porch in another direction, and more trees in the other direction. Both trees are healthy, no decay, and have withstood all weather conditinos for the past 50 years. Also, we dont have a slab, it is on pilings, so it cant be for the roots.