by mjstahl00 » Fri May 29, 2009 01:01 am
My mother received mail from her home owners insurance company stating that she needs to repair parts of her house and dwellings located on the property along with adding railings to stairs (even if they are only two steps). The mail states that they are required to do these repairs within a month.
Is this legal? Can they do this? How can this be fought?
Is this legal? Can they do this? How can this be fought?
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 03:57 am Post Subject:
When an inspection is actually ordered and completed, they don't usually happen again for a few years.
So, if a situation arises just after the inspection is done due to lack of maintenance of the home owner, would it be covered then?
It might happen that the inspector might have overlooked the seepage of the bathroom fitting, would the insurance company then have the inspector liable for the damages caused to the property?
Thanks,
Rupert
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:40 am Post Subject:
might happen that the inspector might have overlooked the seepage of the bathroom fitting, would the insurance company then have the inspector liable for the damages caused to the property?
No, not on this type of inspection, I think you might be confussing a home inspection by a professional that checks out your house prior to purchasing it with a safety inspector that actually works for the insurance company this is his/her job...he's only checking the property and it's condition for it's ''risk'' value...and insurability, not if the house is sound which is what a home inspector would do that you hire prior to buying a home.Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 01:03 pm Post Subject:
Rupert,
If the insurance company orders an inspection on your home and recommendations are made for you to fix certain hazards and you don't fix them and there is a claim, the insurance company holds the right not to pay the claim. If the adjuster fails to identify a potential risk during an inspection and there is a claim in the future arising out of that particular unidentified hazard, then the claim would be paid, jsut as long as if it was normally covered under the policy.
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 02:10 pm Post Subject:
If you want to read more information on home insurance in spanish, please go to seguroz.com
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 03:40 am Post Subject:
I think the insurer would decide not to renew the policy if the insured doesn't comply with the recommendations mentioned by the inspector, right?
Can they cancel the policy too at the middle of the term?
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm Post Subject:
What a second here...
the insurance company orders an inspection on your home and recommendations are made for you to fix certain hazards and you don't fix them and there is a claim, the insurance company holds the right not to pay the claim
Nope, I don't think so...there is no provision in the policy that allows for this..if that policy is enforce the claim will be paid, regardless of the letter the insured receives advising her fix this or that...the only possible way would be if a company had the insured sign a document, agreeing that since she failed to repair or fix the problems in question then she as the insured is agreeing to handle any claims that arrise from this...I'm making all that up, as I've never seen such a form, but that would be the ONLY way they could deny the claim, with a policy in force...If the adjuster fails to identify a potential risk during an inspection and there is a claim in the future arising out of that particular unidentified hazard, then the claim would be paid, jsut as long as if it was normally covered under the policy.
Adjusters do not do risk management inspections....if they are working a claim, and notice something, they can send in a u/w report, but they don't go out and do risk/safety inspections...and these inspections IN NO WAY affect the terms of the policy...The carrier has the option to non-renew for the insured not complying with their request to repair whatever it was...but if a claim arrises while that policy is in good standing that claim is paid, I don't care how many letters were sent to the insured telling them to fix this or that...I think the insurer would decide not to renew the policy if the insured doesn't comply with the recommendations mentioned by the inspector, right?
That's EXACTLY what would happen..Can they cancel the policy too at the middle of the term?
No, and yes, they would have to prove material mis-rep to do so...in this situation, it's doubtful UNLESS the hazard is so over the top, the carrier would have in no way insured the property had they known of it's exsistance, and the insured hid that hazard...For instance, if the application for insurance asked about a wood stove, and the insured said 'no, no wood stove'...and an inspector saw the wood stove, that's material mis-rep, (if that carrier doesn't insure homes with wood heat)...and they could cancel that policy...In this instance it sounds like maintence, or lack there of...and minor things like hand railings...not repairing those will get her non-renewed but not canceled mid policy. (that's actually kind of hard to do)Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 05:05 am Post Subject:
Adjusters do not do risk management inspections....if they are working a claim, and notice something, they can send in a u/w report, but they don't go out and do risk/safety inspections...and these inspections IN NO WAY affect the terms of the policy...The carrier has the option to non-renew for the insured not complying with their request to repair whatever it was...but if a claim arrises while that policy is in good standing that claim is paid, I don't care how many letters were sent to the insured telling them to fix this or that...
When I was an independent adjuster, most of the companies that I worked for were smaller out of state carriers that never looked at the properties they insured except for maybe the agent. Some would give specific directions to check certain items when at the property and not associated with the claim, which more or less was somewhat of a risk management inspection. I would agree that any findings would not affect the claim I was handling but I assume that they forwarded any findings to underwriting for a follow up inspection or letter to the insured. I know in one case where a church got non-renewed (during the claim) which made it so nice to deal with the insured.
Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 06:02 am Post Subject:
Hi unitedinsurancegroupct,
If the adjuster fails to identify a potential risk during an inspection and there is a claim in the future arising out of that particular unidentified hazard, then the claim would be paid, jsut as long as if it was normally covered under the policy.
Would they meet the claim in full? Would it go through any investigation process?
Steven
Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:18 am Post Subject:
which made it so nice to deal with the insured.
:lol: :lol: :lol:Would they meet the claim in full? Would it go through any investigation process?
Steven, read my response to this, this is not an accruate statement..Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 08:53 am Post Subject:
but if a claim arrises while that policy is in good standing that claim is paid, I don't care how many letters were sent to the insured telling them to fix this or that...
So, I get that the claim would be settled without further negotiations..
Steven
Add your comment