driver hit my house, her insurance has paid claim minus depr

Message Author
ampm-bookmark
delicious-small Add to delicious
yahoomyweb-small Add to YahooMyWeb
blinklist-small Add to BlinkList
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:26 pm   Post subject: driver hit my house, her insurance has paid claim minus depr  

driver hit my home, her auto insurance paid claim less depreciation amount. I feel her auto insurance should pay entire amount to repair my home.

eulairwin
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Posts: 3


1.92 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:29 pm   Post subject:   

I hear you but here is the deal... depreciation means the damaged parts were subject to wear and tear. That is, they would need to be replaced after a certain amount of time. Your having new items put on so these items will last long. In other words, your getting something more then what you had. The at fault party does not owe for this difference.



As I said, I hear you. If the accident did not happen you'd not have to pay a dime. Also, you'd not have to replace those items for awhile. It's not the greatest thing... but it's fair.



Your other choice is to file under your own policy with replacement cost and have your carrier seek recovery for the amount the other carrier paid to you. They would accept this and close the claim.

tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:53 pm   Post subject: driver hit my house  

my attorney feels her auto insurance should pay entire amount too. I have not contacted my home owner insurance on this.

eulairwin
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Posts: 3


1.92 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:37 pm   Post subject:   

Your attorney is 100% incorrect (as long as the items in question are subject to wear and tear). I'm guessing your attorney does not handle property damage cases. I've spoken with auto injury attorney who don't know anything about how total loss vehicles are handled.



Thing about it this way... you have a 2007 vehicle and it's damages behind repair. You go out and buy a 2009 vehicle. Does the other person owe you for the cost of the 2009 vehicle? Property is property. It's not as clear when it's a house but it's the same.

tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:56 pm   Post subject: driver hit my house  

This car ramed into my garage wall (load bearing wall, broke studs in three places, the entire wall is going to have to be replaced along with siding, am not asking for a new house! just repairs to my house to fix it back the way it was before she hit it with her car, her fault, not mine, I should not have to pay a dime because a stupid driver had no control of her vehicle and ramed into my house................No one ever ever has to replace a load bearing wall to a home, roof, etc maybe but never a wall

eulairwin
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Posts: 3


1.92 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:57 pm   Post subject:   

I could agree with that. I'd say siding yes. If there was drywall on the inside then depreciation would apply to that as well as paint.

tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:06 am   Post subject:   

If it is just some studs and siding with no drywall or interior finishes, I would write it up to repair the studs and "Repair" the siding replacing the damaged siding only and take no depreciation. What it really comes down to



Here is your bargaining tool. Tell them to pay in full for the studs and damaged siding (if that is all there is), or you will push matching issues regarding the siding. Do they owe you for matching...no but it might get you somewhere and can not hurt.



_________________

Can I say I’m working if I stare blankly at my computer all day?
Dasfuk
Senior member
Leave a quick message

Dasfuk

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 606

Location: Ohio
24.95 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:29 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
I hear you but here is the deal... depreciation means the damaged parts were subject to wear and tear. That is, they would need to be replaced after a certain amount of time. Your having new items put on so these items will last long. In other words, your getting something more then what you had. The at fault party does not owe for this difference.



As I said, I hear you. If the accident did not happen you'd not have to pay a dime. Also, you'd not have to replace those items for awhile. It's not the greatest thing... but it's fair.


.

.





That's one way to look at it [ as a 1st party claim ] implying the Victim is somehow assumed to be bound by the terms & restrictions of the at fault parties "Insurance Contract".



Here's another way to look at it. {{which is only my slightly educated laymen's opinion}}



The victims Loss is not about insurance contracts, rules, or wishes. [the insurance co. did not damage their home] A person damaged their home, and that person is responsible for the damage they caused.



As far as the victim is concerned This is a TORT, not an insurance claim. The victim is owed everything that is reasonable and necessary to place them in the condition they were in before the damage was done. [at no expense to them] No depreciation, no co-pay, no deductible, or anything else.



The victim does NOT WANT more than they had. They want only what they had. Give them what they had and its a done deal. If you can't give them what they had that's not the victims Fault. They did not Need any of this damaged area replaced or repaired at this time, and should be expected to spend even one little dime getting back to where they were before the area was damaged.



And as they do not want more.... Neither do they want LESS than they had. If for some reason you can't give them exactly what they had... Less is not an option. They should not be expected to accept less. Or pay for more..!



eulairwin,



If you are forced to use the Court system, don't let the focus drift from the rules of Tort. If it drifts toward an insurance matter you will likely get your bottom handed to you in a bag.



I'm sure your attorney already knows all of the above, but sometimes I just like to hear the clickity clack of the key-board. Smile



Just me, thinking out loud with my finger tips way, way to close to the old key-board. [Again]


_________________

.

.



That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ ) Smile



FK,
FK
Senior member
Leave a quick message

FK

Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 290

Location: Pa.
41.08 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:42 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
That's one way to look at it [ as a 1st party claim ] implying the Victim is somehow assumed to be bound by the terms & restrictions of the at fault parties "Insurance Contract"
It has nothing to do with a contract (most 1st party claims under a HO policy are Replacement Cost). This is what the law dictates... just as you state.



I don't think it can be any more clear... if the item is closer the failure then a new one then what is owed is the same type of item... just as close to failure as the old one. Not a brand new part. Let me give another example. A person damages the tire on your car. The tread is 1/2 used up. The person does not owe you a brand new tire as this is not what you had and you agree with this:
Quote:
They want only what they had
. A similar tire with the same tread depth is owed for. In the case of a house, replacing the parts with the same type of used material might be possible... it's just not practical. But none of this is changes what is owed by law.



Like I said, it's a tough pill to swallow but its the law of the land we live in and there is nothing wrong with following the law.
tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:00 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
.It has nothing to do with a contract (most 1st party claims under a HO policy are Replacement Cost). This is what the law dictates... just as you state.



I don't think it can be any more clear... if the item is closer the failure then a new one then what is owed is the same type of item... just as close to failure as the old one. Not a brand new part. Let me give another example. A person damages the tire on your car. The tread is 1/2 used up. The person does not owe you a brand new tire as this is not what you had and you agree with this:Quote:

They want only what they had

. A similar tire with the same tread depth is owed for. In the case of a house, replacing the parts with the same type of used material might be possible... it's just not practical. But none of this is changes what is owed by law.



Like I said, it's a tough pill to swallow but its the law of the land we live in and there is nothing wrong with following the law.


.

eulairwin,



This is an example of my closing remarks... He is trying to keep this aligned with Insurance rules & regulations.



tcope, I doubt there is a consumer Tort rule that states one can be forced to pay for something they did not want or need. In this case, New siding, wall board, etc. and the labor and other related expenses & inconveniences, Such as living in a home that's under re-construction for weeks or months.





Quote:
In the case of a house, replacing the parts with the same type of used material might be possible... it's just not practical.


(under-line added for clarity purposes by me FK)



Exactly... so if its more practical and/or less expensive to use New building materials to repair the house (compared to the near impossible task of finding identically aged lumber and other building materials and supplies) then ... fine go ahead and use New...... but not at my expense.


_________________

.

.



That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ ) Smile



FK,
FK
Senior member
Leave a quick message

FK

Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 290

Location: Pa.
41.08 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:40 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
This is an example of my closing remarks... He is trying to keep this aligned with Insurance rules & regulations.



tcope, I doubt there is a consumer Tort rule that states one can be forced to pay for something they did not want or need. In this case, New siding, wall board, etc. and the labor and other related expenses & inconveniences, Such as living in a home that's under re-construction for weeks or months.
Paying for what was damaged is what the law states is owed. If the person's only recourse is to replace it with new, then that is a separate matter. I can only tell you the way it is and give you several examples of how people normally see this happen (paying the value of a 2007 vehicle instead of paying for a 2010 vehicle and applying depreciation to a tire). Again, it has _nothing_ to do with insurance rules and regulations... as even I've stated, they don't apply to a 3rd party claim.



Trust me, I understand that this places the person under a hardship. I completely understand that. But what is owed under law is what is owed. When a business needs to buy 10,000 widgets for $10,000 do they just pay the vendor $20,000? Not the best example but my point is the insurance policy pays what the at fault party owes. If the law states its the depreciated amount, then this is what is paid. Call it whatever you want, blame the insurance company if it makes you feel better... it's simply the law and business.
tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:06 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
Paying for what was damaged is what the law states is owed.




Do you have a Link to the Law you're referring to that you would share?



It might resolve most of our differences Smile


_________________

.

.



That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ ) Smile



FK,
FK
Senior member
Leave a quick message

FK

Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 290

Location: Pa.
41.08 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:19 pm   Post subject:   

How can a damaged party be made whole if they have to contribute in any monetary way to repair damages from a loss that flows from the negligence of the at fault party? Looking for a reference from Couch's law which I believe infers that if the damage party has to be made better as a result of restoring to "at least" preloss condition new must be considered if like, kind, and quality is not available.



One possible link http://www.ican2000.com/dvDirect/msr7.asp

another link http://www.mwl-law.com/CM/Resources/Made-Whole-in-All--50-States-8-31- 09.pdf



_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:23 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
How can a damaged party be made whole if they have to contribute in any monetary way to repair damages from a loss that flows from the negligence of the at fault party
The part your overlooking is the "made whole" part. If they had 20 year old siding and get new siding, they are getting more then what they had. In that 20 year old siding is not available does not change what was damaged (20 year old siding).
tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:43 pm   Post subject:   

I am still with Fred on this one. If you force a damaged party out of pocket expenses because damage can not be repaired to pre loss without putting the damaged party in a better position with new siding, then you have to consider new to make the person whole. You would have to show how putting up new siding on only a portion of the house increased the overall value of the property in order to assign the owner to place their own equity in the repair from damages resulting of the negligence of the at fault party.



Like Fred said, possibly, you are lookiing at it from a contractual obligation on a first party claim instead of restatement of torts in a civil matter.



_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

All times are GMT
1, 2  Next  
Page 1 of 2


Get free auto insurance quote
State Auto Insurance Laws in USA

USA Auto Insurance laws
Ask Community Experts

flash plugin

Quick Links

Must See

Community

Hot topics in forums

Latest in blogs

AmPmInsure on Facebook



Page loaded in 0.285 seconds.