,and I do not know how can claim it. It was two years ago. and I do not lost outside or in home?
Total Comments: 14
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 06:32 pm Post Subject:
First off, I'd like to address Lori's point concerning this statement:
Something I personally have always found a rip...in the stated amount (auto) policys and as in your example of scheduled property....it seems to me it 'should' be the stated amount rather than what the co can replace it for BECAUSE the premium is based on the stated amount...see my point?
OK, I think I can change your mind on this one, Lori. You're saying that since the insured paid the premium for a specific level of coverage, they should receive the coverage amount (in the event of a total loss) that they paid for, and NOT be settled on the insurer's determination of "repair, replace or cash out" value at the time of loss. Is this right? Keep in mind, we're still talking about an ACV contract.
All right, here's the comparison: Let's say that you insure your home for $300, and it burns to the ground. During the initial underwriting phase, when the carrier first considered issuing the policy, they made sure (most carriers) that the home was insured to "100% of it's current replacement cost" (standard HO-3 carrier requirements).
Let's say that the $300k was the replacement cost at the time of issuance. Now, here comes the house fire that totals out the home. However, at the time of the loss, the insurance company found that they can pay a builder $275,000, and this builder will replace the house with "like" materials and workmanship (as the polict mandates). So, the insurance company has replaced the home according to the terms of the policy, the insured gets a new house, and everyone is happy. Theoretically. Insured's always have something to whine about, eh? :?
Now, are you suggesting that the insured should get the policy limit of $300K in this example simply because they paid for $300k of coverage? Now, I know that you aren't...but this is a good basis for discussion.
Next, Lori said:
What you are calling an 'open peril' is in effect an inland marine on this scheduled property as an endorcement to the HO rather than a separate policy,, right? You know I know that I have never seen this (in my part of the woods) re: added to the HO, (other than in my example where it simply increased the limit and does nothing re:changing the perils)...only thing I've ever seen in a separate inland marine...again I don't know if that's a state deal or this could've been the company that I worked for....only sold it this particular way...
I have worked with I don't know how many carriers in my career, and there aren't many technical differences between adding a scheduled article as an endorsement to a homeowner's policy and Personal Property Floaters (PPFs) that are typically sold as "stand-alone" contracts, commonly part of a commercial insurance policy package.
Most of the insurers that I have worked with use this method: schedules for personal lines articles that need the open-perils coverage, and PPFs for commercial insureds that need the same coverage protection. The primary difference between the two is where you would be covered. Schedules normally provide worldwide coverage, PPFs are commonly restrictive in nature regarding the territory where the property would be covered. BUT! I have seen it the "other" way as well, just rarely, that's all.
So, in closing, I would suggest that it is carrier specific as to how this is done, and it not subject to state rule or law.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:41 am Post Subject:
Thanks thanks and thanks again ins teacher! BUUUUUUUUUUT, ( :roll: )
I'm not though
we're still talking about an ACV contract.
regarding a stated amount policy...I get you and 100% agree on an acv policy, and guess you were making the point that although an acv policy a homeowners is 'still' based on a 'limit' or actually a specific amount for the structure right? But a stated amount (or scheduled) well hell, I guess it's based on the amount too...ok (once again :D ) you're right! I bow to the master! :P
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:43 am Post Subject:
BUT! I have seen it the "other" way as well, just rarely, that's all.
The carrier that I worked for (ten years, when I saw it only this way) is a small (13 states I think) carrier so maybe that was it...(shelter)
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 05:33 pm Post Subject:
Lori said:
...ok (once again ) you're right! I bow to the master!
Oh Lori...that's not necessary. LOL $20 and $50 bills will suffice... :D
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 06:32 pm Post Subject:
First off, I'd like to address Lori's point concerning this statement:
Something I personally have always found a rip...in the stated amount (auto) policys and as in your example of scheduled property....it seems to me it 'should' be the stated amount rather than what the co can replace it for BECAUSE the premium is based on the stated amount...see my point?
OK, I think I can change your mind on this one, Lori. You're saying that since the insured paid the premium for a specific level of coverage, they should receive the coverage amount (in the event of a total loss) that they paid for, and NOT be settled on the insurer's determination of "repair, replace or cash out" value at the time of loss. Is this right? Keep in mind, we're still talking about an ACV contract.
All right, here's the comparison: Let's say that you insure your home for $300, and it burns to the ground. During the initial underwriting phase, when the carrier first considered issuing the policy, they made sure (most carriers) that the home was insured to "100% of it's current replacement cost" (standard HO-3 carrier requirements).
Let's say that the $300k was the replacement cost at the time of issuance. Now, here comes the house fire that totals out the home. However, at the time of the loss, the insurance company found that they can pay a builder $275,000, and this builder will replace the house with "like" materials and workmanship (as the polict mandates). So, the insurance company has replaced the home according to the terms of the policy, the insured gets a new house, and everyone is happy. Theoretically. Insured's always have something to whine about, eh? :?
Now, are you suggesting that the insured should get the policy limit of $300K in this example simply because they paid for $300k of coverage? Now, I know that you aren't...but this is a good basis for discussion.
Next, Lori said:
What you are calling an 'open peril' is in effect an inland marine on this scheduled property as an endorcement to the HO rather than a separate policy,, right? You know I know that I have never seen this (in my part of the woods) re: added to the HO, (other than in my example where it simply increased the limit and does nothing re:changing the perils)...only thing I've ever seen in a separate inland marine...again I don't know if that's a state deal or this could've been the company that I worked for....only sold it this particular way...
I have worked with I don't know how many carriers in my career, and there aren't many technical differences between adding a scheduled article as an endorsement to a homeowner's policy and Personal Property Floaters (PPFs) that are typically sold as "stand-alone" contracts, commonly part of a commercial insurance policy package.
Most of the insurers that I have worked with use this method: schedules for personal lines articles that need the open-perils coverage, and PPFs for commercial insureds that need the same coverage protection. The primary difference between the two is where you would be covered. Schedules normally provide worldwide coverage, PPFs are commonly restrictive in nature regarding the territory where the property would be covered. BUT! I have seen it the "other" way as well, just rarely, that's all.
So, in closing, I would suggest that it is carrier specific as to how this is done, and it not subject to state rule or law.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:41 am Post Subject:
Thanks thanks and thanks again ins teacher! BUUUUUUUUUUT, ( :roll: )
I'm not though
we're still talking about an ACV contract.
regarding a stated amount policy...I get you and 100% agree on an acv policy, and guess you were making the point that although an acv policy a homeowners is 'still' based on a 'limit' or actually a specific amount for the structure right? But a stated amount (or scheduled) well hell, I guess it's based on the amount too...ok (once again :D ) you're right! I bow to the master! :PPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:43 am Post Subject:
BUT! I have seen it the "other" way as well, just rarely, that's all.
The carrier that I worked for (ten years, when I saw it only this way) is a small (13 states I think) carrier so maybe that was it...(shelter)Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 05:33 pm Post Subject:
Lori said:
...ok (once again ) you're right! I bow to the master!
Oh Lori...that's not necessary. LOL $20 and $50 bills will suffice... :D
InsTeacher 8)
Add your comment