by DBcLaims » Sat Feb 09, 2013 02:44 pm
Apparently (I haven't read the new policy yet)
In order to have coverage for ensuing damages form a roof leak there will need to be an "opening", damages from "wear and tear" will no longer be covered What is considered an opening? Lifted Shingle/s?
Additionally, apparently the cap on water damages that got shot down last year is going into affect. 15k cap on damages. Anyone else heard about these? Thoughts?
In order to have coverage for ensuing damages form a roof leak there will need to be an "opening", damages from "wear and tear" will no longer be covered What is considered an opening? Lifted Shingle/s?
Additionally, apparently the cap on water damages that got shot down last year is going into affect. 15k cap on damages. Anyone else heard about these? Thoughts?
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 06:25 pm Post Subject:
a wind created opening is just what it says. an opening that readily identified as something caused by wind. lifted shingles is an old argument that gained steam in Texas after Ike as the Texas wind started out denying lifted shingles and ultimately had to compromise
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 06:26 pm Post Subject:
What is considered an opening? Lifted Shingle/s?
Yes, shingles damaged through action of wind or another covered cause of loss would constitute an "opening". So, too, would a falling object, such as a tree, that punches a hole in the roof. What is considered "wear and tear" on the other hand would be shingles that have simply outlived their useful life (of 20-50 years) or corroded flashings between roof line joins at the "valleys" or around penetrations such as water heater/forced-air heating vents or plumbing drain vents, or attic vents such as dormers or exhaust fans/turbans.
the cap on water damages that got shot down last year is going into affect. 15k cap on damages.
No way to respond to this . . . you don't mention the state involved. Each state has its own laws, and coverage like this may vary from one to another. But if there is a standard policy limit such as this, your insurer will likely permit the purchase of a higher limit by paying more premium for the coverage -- same as it does with liability limits and scheduled personal property.However, if this coverage limit has been imposed by changes in state law, then it will apply to all insurers equally, not just the one you are inquiring about. Perhaps you live in a hurricane- or tornado-prone location where these claims have gotten out of hand in the past few years?
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 01:55 pm Post Subject:
I was referring to the changes in FLORIDA CItizens Insurance
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 03:53 pm Post Subject:
Well . . . obviously this state-created property and casualty insurance "company" is having trouble covering the catastrophic claims other insurance companies don't want to cover in a place prone to annual hurricane damage, so reducing coverage and increasing exclusions is one way to deal with the dilemma. It's a problem that occurs when government entities with no experience as an "insurance business" think they can do a better job than honest-to-goodness insurance companies, who actually have to set aside money as "reserves" for the payment of claims rather than increase taxes or sell more debt to cover losses.
The state of Florida has denied much in the way of rate increases petitioned for by commercial insurers in the wake of multi-year catastrophic claims in the past decade and, with fewer companies doing business in Florida today compared to ten years ago, has become the insurer of first resort, so it's getting harder to find coverage outside the Citizens realm. But when you have an insurance entity that doesn't quite have to follow the same set of rules, then you are stuck with whatever it is they need to do to stay above water from one year to the next. So if they need to limit coverage, exclude more losses, raise rates . . . that's what you have to put up with.
The lesson to be learned: Cheap insurance is often worth what you pay for it.
Now, extrapolate this experience with Obamacare, which is going to force the commercial insurance industry out of the health care insurance business, and leave only the states or the federal government as a single-payer. What do you think will happen? The federal government has already demonstrated that in more than 70 years, they can't keep Social Security solvent, and Medicare, which is half as old, long ago became insolvent -- together, the two programs are facing a $123,000,000,000,000 funding shortfall that we have absolutely no ability AS AN ENTIRE NATION, to overcome. So it's no wonder no one in Congress really wants to have an open discussion about it.
Take a look at the state of Vermont. It is 51st on the list of US states (including the D.C.) in terms of GDP at little more than $26,400,000,000 (compared to #1 CA, for example, with $14,657,000,000,000. Where does the state of VA think it's going to get the money to pay for its own single-payer health care system it envisions will replace commercial health insurance in the next four years? How much in the way of other state services are the people of Vermont willing to give up to cover the actual expenses of providing health care to themselves?
Add your comment