by Eagle » Tue Jan 24, 2012 09:23 am
Do most HO-3 and HO-5 policies contain the following wording or something similar: "We will not pay to repair or replace undamaged property due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material because of:
a. texture, dimensional differences; b. color, fading, oxidation, weathering differences; c. wear and tear, marring, scratching, deterioration; or d. obsolences or discontinuation. We do not cover the loss in value to any property due to mismatch between undamaged and new matierioals used to repair or replace damaged material."
This came up recently with a claim where the kitchen sustained water damage and only the lower portion of the cabinets were damaged. Unhappy client when we found out that the company would not pay to replace all of the cabinets, only the lower portion.
a. texture, dimensional differences; b. color, fading, oxidation, weathering differences; c. wear and tear, marring, scratching, deterioration; or d. obsolences or discontinuation. We do not cover the loss in value to any property due to mismatch between undamaged and new matierioals used to repair or replace damaged material."
This came up recently with a claim where the kitchen sustained water damage and only the lower portion of the cabinets were damaged. Unhappy client when we found out that the company would not pay to replace all of the cabinets, only the lower portion.
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:28 am Post Subject:
Yes, that is pretty standard these days. I'd say that verbiage might be a bit more restrictive then some, though.
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:57 am Post Subject:
Your insurance policy covers loss or damaged property and the subsequent replacement cost of the DAMAGED property. In this case, the whole cabinet is not damaged, only the lower portion is.
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:45 am Post Subject:
In this case, the whole cabinet is not damaged, only the lower portion is
There were good arguments that the policy owed to make sure things matched... this is why the mentioned wording has been added to many policies. If a certain color siding (faded) was damaged and it was all that one color, would the insurance policy not owe to replace that siding with siding that matched that existing color? It's not a question of what the "damages" were... it's more of a question of what "repair" means.Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 04:34 am Post Subject:
That is some tough language to have in the policy. It seems that we all keep getting less and less coverage for more money!
You may want to see if there is any language referencing a loss to a Pair or Set as this may give you back some coverage that is being taken away from you. From what you are stating it does not sound to me like they are properly putting you back to where you were before the loss which is why we all buy insurance. One more thing you may want to look into is if there are any state laws or statutes relating to "Matching". You may want to get in touch with a reputable public insurance adjuster if you do have them in your state.
Add your comment