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.
Total Comments: 19
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 06:06 pm Post Subject:
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 :)
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 07:19 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
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 07:23 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
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).
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 07:43 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.
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 04:54 pm Post Subject:
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.
Thats why many times it is listed as a repair when you are only doing parts of siding and a few studs with no depreciation taken. Some adjusters and carriers don't look at this with common sense. When there is limited damage it should be a repair with no depreciation. Now if the driver drove in the kitchen and the OP was getting brand new cabinets and appliances that were 20 years old, then it should be taken.
What is owed is what is owed by law. Would you prefer that old lumber, 20 year old carpet with the original stains, and washed out siding is found at a junk dealer and then installed.
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 06:14 pm Post Subject:
You're still looking at it from the insurance perspective. No one has shown any statutory evidence that a damaged party (victim of a tort) is bound by the terms and conditions (depreciation) of the contract of insurance that the home owner is not a party to. If the homeowner gets new cabinents because the insurer does not want the liability of locating and restoring the damage with used cabinetry, the homeowner should not be penalized, if all that is available is new, in your example.
I'd bet a dollar to a donut that a judge would not require the homeowner to be inconvenienced or out a single penny to be made whole as a result of damages resulting from the tort feasor even if they were put in a better position after the damages. The homeowner could have been happy as a clam to not have to had filed a claim to begin with.
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 07:07 pm Post Subject:
Dasfuk,
I know, I know. this bantering is starting to get old, but...
What is owed is what is owed by law. Would you prefer that old lumber, 20 year old carpet with the original stains, and washed out siding is found at a junk dealer and then installed.
Yep..! --- & --- Nope..!
As long at its 'at least' equal to what it was before it was damaged.
You see... not everyone has ""20 year old carpet with the original stains, and washed out siding"" in/on their 20 year old home.
I too can play the scenario game to make a point .. There are couples without children or pets that actually have door casings that have not been used as scratching posts & fire hydrants. Never a Crayon, Magic marker, Nor Tricycle wheel had ever touched a wall or appliance. The entire Home is spotlessly cleaned inside and out on a regular basis. And the carpets are only two years old without a stain (or even a piece of lint]
Sooo, If one would rather pay the cost of Hotel or other accommodation while they search Flee-Markets, Yard Sales, and used Appliance/ building suppliers for a year or two, trying to find replacements that are at least equal to what was damaged. Instead of saving money paying the full cost of repairing with new, like most any reasonable person would do or expect... then, go for it......
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:51 pm Post Subject:
I'd take a piece of twenty year old straight lumber any day over the pre- arched pre-cut studs and twisted green lumber they sell today. Who says new is always better. Heckfire, I'd take lumber from a collapsed seventy-five year old barn, but you'd have to pay more for that since it is considered rough old and seasoned just like me and Fred. :lol:
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 04:34 pm Post Subject:
Your right Mike,
That reminded me of an aprox. 80 year old building in our small town that was recently torn down. It was a two story building and the exterior wall studs were 20 foot long 2 x 4's, with hardly a knot hole in any of them. And very, very straight. But... ya know what... with this new information they will now still want to add an $1000 betterment charge for new lumber or a $2000 betterment charge for old virgin lumber. We just can't win. :)
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 06:06 pm Post Subject:
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 :)
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 07:19 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
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 07:23 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
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).Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 07:43 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.
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 04:54 pm Post Subject:
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.
Thats why many times it is listed as a repair when you are only doing parts of siding and a few studs with no depreciation taken. Some adjusters and carriers don't look at this with common sense. When there is limited damage it should be a repair with no depreciation. Now if the driver drove in the kitchen and the OP was getting brand new cabinets and appliances that were 20 years old, then it should be taken.
What is owed is what is owed by law. Would you prefer that old lumber, 20 year old carpet with the original stains, and washed out siding is found at a junk dealer and then installed.
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 06:14 pm Post Subject:
You're still looking at it from the insurance perspective. No one has shown any statutory evidence that a damaged party (victim of a tort) is bound by the terms and conditions (depreciation) of the contract of insurance that the home owner is not a party to. If the homeowner gets new cabinents because the insurer does not want the liability of locating and restoring the damage with used cabinetry, the homeowner should not be penalized, if all that is available is new, in your example.
I'd bet a dollar to a donut that a judge would not require the homeowner to be inconvenienced or out a single penny to be made whole as a result of damages resulting from the tort feasor even if they were put in a better position after the damages. The homeowner could have been happy as a clam to not have to had filed a claim to begin with.
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 07:07 pm Post Subject:
Dasfuk,
I know, I know. this bantering is starting to get old, but...
What is owed is what is owed by law. Would you prefer that old lumber, 20 year old carpet with the original stains, and washed out siding is found at a junk dealer and then installed.
Yep..! --- & --- Nope..!
As long at its 'at least' equal to what it was before it was damaged.
You see... not everyone has ""20 year old carpet with the original stains, and washed out siding"" in/on their 20 year old home.
I too can play the scenario game to make a point .. There are couples without children or pets that actually have door casings that have not been used as scratching posts & fire hydrants. Never a Crayon, Magic marker, Nor Tricycle wheel had ever touched a wall or appliance. The entire Home is spotlessly cleaned inside and out on a regular basis. And the carpets are only two years old without a stain (or even a piece of lint]
Sooo, If one would rather pay the cost of Hotel or other accommodation while they search Flee-Markets, Yard Sales, and used Appliance/ building suppliers for a year or two, trying to find replacements that are at least equal to what was damaged. Instead of saving money paying the full cost of repairing with new, like most any reasonable person would do or expect... then, go for it......
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:51 pm Post Subject:
I'd take a piece of twenty year old straight lumber any day over the pre- arched pre-cut studs and twisted green lumber they sell today. Who says new is always better. Heckfire, I'd take lumber from a collapsed seventy-five year old barn, but you'd have to pay more for that since it is considered rough old and seasoned just like me and Fred. :lol:
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 04:34 pm Post Subject:
Your right Mike,
That reminded me of an aprox. 80 year old building in our small town that was recently torn down. It was a two story building and the exterior wall studs were 20 foot long 2 x 4's, with hardly a knot hole in any of them. And very, very straight. But... ya know what... with this new information they will now still want to add an $1000 betterment charge for new lumber or a $2000 betterment charge for old virgin lumber. We just can't win. :)
Add your comment