by Clarence » Thu Jan 18, 2007 02:52 am
Hi All,
I am new to this forum :)
I have a policy that covers house contents in cases of fire and other perils. Recently, my TV caught fire and as a result, my greyish-white 'compressed marble' floor in the living hall was stained in various places.
As agreed with the insurer, a ‘re-polishing' of the whole floor was done but one patch, an area of about four 600mm x 600mm tiles, was still a problem. The contractor used a chemical in an attempt to rid the stains, but the affected area turned instead into glaring white patch. He concluded that that was the best that could be done. We love the floor very much and the stained patch is a pain to look at. Replacing the tiles was also found to be not feasible, as it is very difficult to find marble tiles with matching ‘tonality'.
Eventually, we decided to accept and live with the damage, and ask for compensation. But to what extent should the compensation cover? Should it just cover the four affected tiles? Or should the entire floor be considered since its value is affected? Or should we ‘meet half-way'?
I am new to this forum :)
I have a policy that covers house contents in cases of fire and other perils. Recently, my TV caught fire and as a result, my greyish-white 'compressed marble' floor in the living hall was stained in various places.
As agreed with the insurer, a ‘re-polishing' of the whole floor was done but one patch, an area of about four 600mm x 600mm tiles, was still a problem. The contractor used a chemical in an attempt to rid the stains, but the affected area turned instead into glaring white patch. He concluded that that was the best that could be done. We love the floor very much and the stained patch is a pain to look at. Replacing the tiles was also found to be not feasible, as it is very difficult to find marble tiles with matching ‘tonality'.
Eventually, we decided to accept and live with the damage, and ask for compensation. But to what extent should the compensation cover? Should it just cover the four affected tiles? Or should the entire floor be considered since its value is affected? Or should we ‘meet half-way'?
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 03:04 am Post Subject:
Please see my response where I posted it on the other page where you already asked this question.. Thanks Clarence and Good Luck!
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 06:29 am Post Subject:
hello clarence please introduce your self at the pub
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:27 am Post Subject:
hi Clarence,
Your question has been answered by nique1221 here:
http://www.ampminsure.org/start/about2366.html#5987
Thanks,
Sasha
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:32 am Post Subject:
hello clarence please introduce your self at the pub
Hey Rachel,
Good to see your efforts. :)
But you forgot to give the link here, lol. Anyways, dont worry I shall do that. Its here:
http://www.ampminsure.org/community/share-introduce.html
Thanks,
Sasha
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:46 am Post Subject: Hi Clarence
Hi Clarence...I don't think theres any meeting half way!
Either the compensation is proportional to the degree of damage caused to the floor or it is simply covering the entire floor.
I feel under the circumstances if the whole of your condominium can not be repaired or replaced, the insurance proceeds aimed to cover the damaged site would be utilized to reinstate the damaged space upon a condition which is commensurate with the rest of your condominium. All the best! Sasha T.
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 09:58 am Post Subject:
Hi Sasha,
> "Either the compensation is proportional to the degree of damage caused to the floor or it is simply covering the entire floor. "
Which would you think is reasonable in this case?
> "... if the whole of your condominium can not be repaired or replaced, the insurance proceeds aimed to cover the damaged site would be utilized to reinstate the damaged space upon a condition which is commensurate with the rest of your condominium."
I couldn't quite understand the above. Do you mean the compensation should be based on the cost to reinstate the damaged area? What is the "condition which is commensurate with the rest of your condominium"?
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:38 am Post Subject: lemme explain..!
Well, its solely up to your policy and your adjuster, but still if whatever you described fits in exactly, then I guess you won't be financed to get the entire floor repaired again. And that is irrespective of whether the tonality gets changed or not.
In the above post I depicted a clause which describes that a condition is applicable for cases where the entire property can't be reinstated by the insurer. As per this condition, the insurance proceeds which you'll achieve for repairing your floor would be somehow related or based upon the value of your tiles which remain undamaged. Hope you got that now!
Sasha.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 04:08 pm Post Subject:
the insurance proceeds which you'll achieve for repairing your floor would be somehow related or based upon the value of your tiles which remain undamaged
The condition sounds interesting.. but I could not quite figure the basis or 'formula' linking the proceeds or compensation to the undamaged tiles. Do you have any idea or maybe an example?
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 06:06 am Post Subject: Hi...yeah!
Hi yeah.. you're quite right Clarence....that was just the basic condition where in the entire property can't be reinstated...but as I said, to what proportion and following which rate would be solely decided upon the facts which have been stated in your agreement with your insurer at the time of applying for that policy. So the formula would be one which is based upon the terms & conditions mentioned in your insurance agreement.
I'd recommend that you go through your terms and conditions once again.
Now once you do that, if you still get confused you'd need to pursue this with the adjuster set by your insurer. Don't forget to tell your adjuster that you're aware of this fact that the replacement value is decided upon the value of the undamaged tiles. Thanks, Sasha.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 06:30 pm Post Subject:
Hi Sasha.. I went through the agreement and found this under Basis of Settlement: "The settlement of any claim, shall be either on on indemnity basis or new for old with provision for wear and tear deduction if necessary at the Company's option."
Can't seem to find anything about the condition where the entire property can't be reinstated, or the replacement value being decided on the value of undamaged tiles. Do you have an idea how it works?
The situation seems to be that it's up to me to suggest a basis or amount and work it out with the adjuster.
Add your comment