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: Thu Sep 24, 2009 09:29 pm Post Subject:
I hear you but here is the deal... depreciation means the damaged parts were subject to wear and tear. That is, they would need to be replaced after a certain amount of time. Your having new items put on so these items will last long. In other words, your getting something more then what you had. The at fault party does not owe for this difference.
As I said, I hear you. If the accident did not happen you'd not have to pay a dime. Also, you'd not have to replace those items for awhile. It's not the greatest thing... but it's fair.
Your other choice is to file under your own policy with replacement cost and have your carrier seek recovery for the amount the other carrier paid to you. They would accept this and close the claim.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 09:53 pm Post Subject: driver hit my house
my attorney feels her auto insurance should pay entire amount too. I have not contacted my home owner insurance on this.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:37 pm Post Subject:
Your attorney is 100% incorrect (as long as the items in question are subject to wear and tear). I'm guessing your attorney does not handle property damage cases. I've spoken with auto injury attorney who don't know anything about how total loss vehicles are handled.
Thing about it this way... you have a 2007 vehicle and it's damages behind repair. You go out and buy a 2009 vehicle. Does the other person owe you for the cost of the 2009 vehicle? Property is property. It's not as clear when it's a house but it's the same.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:56 pm Post Subject: driver hit my house
This car ramed into my garage wall (load bearing wall, broke studs in three places, the entire wall is going to have to be replaced along with siding, am not asking for a new house! just repairs to my house to fix it back the way it was before she hit it with her car, her fault, not mine, I should not have to pay a dime because a stupid driver had no control of her vehicle and ramed into my house................No one ever ever has to replace a load bearing wall to a home, roof, etc maybe but never a wall
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:57 pm Post Subject:
I could agree with that. I'd say siding yes. If there was drywall on the inside then depreciation would apply to that as well as paint.
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 02:06 am Post Subject:
If it is just some studs and siding with no drywall or interior finishes, I would write it up to repair the studs and "Repair" the siding replacing the damaged siding only and take no depreciation. What it really comes down to
Here is your bargaining tool. Tell them to pay in full for the studs and damaged siding (if that is all there is), or you will push matching issues regarding the siding. Do they owe you for matching...no but it might get you somewhere and can not hurt.
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 02:29 pm Post Subject:
I hear you but here is the deal... depreciation means the damaged parts were subject to wear and tear. That is, they would need to be replaced after a certain amount of time. Your having new items put on so these items will last long. In other words, your getting something more then what you had. The at fault party does not owe for this difference.
As I said, I hear you. If the accident did not happen you'd not have to pay a dime. Also, you'd not have to replace those items for awhile. It's not the greatest thing... but it's fair.
.
.
That's one way to look at it [ as a 1st party claim ] implying the Victim is somehow assumed to be bound by the terms & restrictions of the at fault parties "Insurance Contract".
Here's another way to look at it. {{which is only my slightly educated laymen's opinion}}
The victims Loss is not about insurance contracts, rules, or wishes. [the insurance co. did not damage their home] A person damaged their home, and that person is responsible for the damage they caused.
As far as the victim is concerned This is a TORT, not an insurance claim. The victim is owed everything that is reasonable and necessary to place them in the condition they were in before the damage was done. [at no expense to them] No depreciation, no co-pay, no deductible, or anything else.
The victim does NOT WANT more than they had. They want only what they had. Give them what they had and its a done deal. If you can't give them what they had that's not the victims Fault. They did not Need any of this damaged area replaced or repaired at this time, and should be expected to spend even one little dime getting back to where they were before the area was damaged.
And as they do not want more.... Neither do they want LESS than they had. If for some reason you can't give them exactly what they had... Less is not an option. They should not be expected to accept less. Or pay for more..!
eulairwin,
If you are forced to use the Court system, don't let the focus drift from the rules of Tort. If it drifts toward an insurance matter you will likely get your bottom handed to you in a bag.
I'm sure your attorney already knows all of the above, but sometimes I just like to hear the clickity clack of the key-board. :)
Just me, thinking out loud with my finger tips way, way to close to the old key-board. [Again]
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 02:42 pm Post Subject:
That's one way to look at it [ as a 1st party claim ] implying the Victim is somehow assumed to be bound by the terms & restrictions of the at fault parties "Insurance Contract"
It has nothing to do with a contract (most 1st party claims under a HO policy are Replacement Cost). This is what the law dictates... just as you state.
I don't think it can be any more clear... if the item is closer the failure then a new one then what is owed is the same type of item... just as close to failure as the old one. Not a brand new part. Let me give another example. A person damages the tire on your car. The tread is 1/2 used up. The person does not owe you a brand new tire as this is not what you had and you agree with this:
They want only what they had
. A similar tire with the same tread depth is owed for. In the case of a house, replacing the parts with the same type of used material might be possible... it's just not practical. But none of this is changes what is owed by law.
Like I said, it's a tough pill to swallow but its the law of the land we live in and there is nothing wrong with following the law.
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 05:00 pm Post Subject:
.It has nothing to do with a contract (most 1st party claims under a HO policy are Replacement Cost). This is what the law dictates... just as you state.
I don't think it can be any more clear... if the item is closer the failure then a new one then what is owed is the same type of item... just as close to failure as the old one. Not a brand new part. Let me give another example. A person damages the tire on your car. The tread is 1/2 used up. The person does not owe you a brand new tire as this is not what you had and you agree with this:Quote:
They want only what they had
. A similar tire with the same tread depth is owed for. In the case of a house, replacing the parts with the same type of used material might be possible... it's just not practical. But none of this is changes what is owed by law.
Like I said, it's a tough pill to swallow but its the law of the land we live in and there is nothing wrong with following the law.
.
eulairwin,
This is an example of my closing remarks... He is trying to keep this aligned with Insurance rules & regulations.
tcope, I doubt there is a consumer Tort rule that states one can be forced to pay for something they did not want or need. In this case, New siding, wall board, etc. and the labor and other related expenses & inconveniences, Such as living in a home that's under re-construction for weeks or months.
In the case of a house, replacing the parts with the same type of used material might be possible... it's just not practical.
(under-line added for clarity purposes by me FK)
Exactly... so if its more practical and/or less expensive to use New building materials to repair the house (compared to the near impossible task of finding identically aged lumber and other building materials and supplies) then ... fine go ahead and use New...... but not at my expense.
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 05:40 pm Post Subject:
This is an example of my closing remarks... He is trying to keep this aligned with Insurance rules & regulations.
tcope, I doubt there is a consumer Tort rule that states one can be forced to pay for something they did not want or need. In this case, New siding, wall board, etc. and the labor and other related expenses & inconveniences, Such as living in a home that's under re-construction for weeks or months.
Paying for what was damaged is what the law states is owed. If the person's only recourse is to replace it with new, then that is a separate matter. I can only tell you the way it is and give you several examples of how people normally see this happen (paying the value of a 2007 vehicle instead of paying for a 2010 vehicle and applying depreciation to a tire). Again, it has _nothing_ to do with insurance rules and regulations... as even I've stated, they don't apply to a 3rd party claim.
Trust me, I understand that this places the person under a hardship. I completely understand that. But what is owed under law is what is owed. When a business needs to buy 10,000 widgets for $10,000 do they just pay the vendor $20,000? Not the best example but my point is the insurance policy pays what the at fault party owes. If the law states its the depreciated amount, then this is what is paid. Call it whatever you want, blame the insurance company if it makes you feel better... it's simply the law and business.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 09:29 pm Post Subject:
I hear you but here is the deal... depreciation means the damaged parts were subject to wear and tear. That is, they would need to be replaced after a certain amount of time. Your having new items put on so these items will last long. In other words, your getting something more then what you had. The at fault party does not owe for this difference.
As I said, I hear you. If the accident did not happen you'd not have to pay a dime. Also, you'd not have to replace those items for awhile. It's not the greatest thing... but it's fair.
Your other choice is to file under your own policy with replacement cost and have your carrier seek recovery for the amount the other carrier paid to you. They would accept this and close the claim.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 09:53 pm Post Subject: driver hit my house
my attorney feels her auto insurance should pay entire amount too. I have not contacted my home owner insurance on this.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:37 pm Post Subject:
Your attorney is 100% incorrect (as long as the items in question are subject to wear and tear). I'm guessing your attorney does not handle property damage cases. I've spoken with auto injury attorney who don't know anything about how total loss vehicles are handled.
Thing about it this way... you have a 2007 vehicle and it's damages behind repair. You go out and buy a 2009 vehicle. Does the other person owe you for the cost of the 2009 vehicle? Property is property. It's not as clear when it's a house but it's the same.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:56 pm Post Subject: driver hit my house
This car ramed into my garage wall (load bearing wall, broke studs in three places, the entire wall is going to have to be replaced along with siding, am not asking for a new house! just repairs to my house to fix it back the way it was before she hit it with her car, her fault, not mine, I should not have to pay a dime because a stupid driver had no control of her vehicle and ramed into my house................No one ever ever has to replace a load bearing wall to a home, roof, etc maybe but never a wall
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:57 pm Post Subject:
I could agree with that. I'd say siding yes. If there was drywall on the inside then depreciation would apply to that as well as paint.
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 02:06 am Post Subject:
If it is just some studs and siding with no drywall or interior finishes, I would write it up to repair the studs and "Repair" the siding replacing the damaged siding only and take no depreciation. What it really comes down to
Here is your bargaining tool. Tell them to pay in full for the studs and damaged siding (if that is all there is), or you will push matching issues regarding the siding. Do they owe you for matching...no but it might get you somewhere and can not hurt.
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 02:29 pm Post Subject:
I hear you but here is the deal... depreciation means the damaged parts were subject to wear and tear. That is, they would need to be replaced after a certain amount of time. Your having new items put on so these items will last long. In other words, your getting something more then what you had. The at fault party does not owe for this difference.
As I said, I hear you. If the accident did not happen you'd not have to pay a dime. Also, you'd not have to replace those items for awhile. It's not the greatest thing... but it's fair.
.
.
That's one way to look at it [ as a 1st party claim ] implying the Victim is somehow assumed to be bound by the terms & restrictions of the at fault parties "Insurance Contract".
Here's another way to look at it. {{which is only my slightly educated laymen's opinion}}
The victims Loss is not about insurance contracts, rules, or wishes. [the insurance co. did not damage their home] A person damaged their home, and that person is responsible for the damage they caused.
As far as the victim is concerned This is a TORT, not an insurance claim. The victim is owed everything that is reasonable and necessary to place them in the condition they were in before the damage was done. [at no expense to them] No depreciation, no co-pay, no deductible, or anything else.
The victim does NOT WANT more than they had. They want only what they had. Give them what they had and its a done deal. If you can't give them what they had that's not the victims Fault. They did not Need any of this damaged area replaced or repaired at this time, and should be expected to spend even one little dime getting back to where they were before the area was damaged.
And as they do not want more.... Neither do they want LESS than they had. If for some reason you can't give them exactly what they had... Less is not an option. They should not be expected to accept less. Or pay for more..!
eulairwin,
If you are forced to use the Court system, don't let the focus drift from the rules of Tort. If it drifts toward an insurance matter you will likely get your bottom handed to you in a bag.
I'm sure your attorney already knows all of the above, but sometimes I just like to hear the clickity clack of the key-board. :)
Just me, thinking out loud with my finger tips way, way to close to the old key-board. [Again]
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 02:42 pm Post Subject:
That's one way to look at it [ as a 1st party claim ] implying the Victim is somehow assumed to be bound by the terms & restrictions of the at fault parties "Insurance Contract"
It has nothing to do with a contract (most 1st party claims under a HO policy are Replacement Cost). This is what the law dictates... just as you state.I don't think it can be any more clear... if the item is closer the failure then a new one then what is owed is the same type of item... just as close to failure as the old one. Not a brand new part. Let me give another example. A person damages the tire on your car. The tread is 1/2 used up. The person does not owe you a brand new tire as this is not what you had and you agree with this:
They want only what they had
. A similar tire with the same tread depth is owed for. In the case of a house, replacing the parts with the same type of used material might be possible... it's just not practical. But none of this is changes what is owed by law.Like I said, it's a tough pill to swallow but its the law of the land we live in and there is nothing wrong with following the law.
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 05:00 pm Post Subject:
.It has nothing to do with a contract (most 1st party claims under a HO policy are Replacement Cost). This is what the law dictates... just as you state.
I don't think it can be any more clear... if the item is closer the failure then a new one then what is owed is the same type of item... just as close to failure as the old one. Not a brand new part. Let me give another example. A person damages the tire on your car. The tread is 1/2 used up. The person does not owe you a brand new tire as this is not what you had and you agree with this:Quote:
They want only what they had
. A similar tire with the same tread depth is owed for. In the case of a house, replacing the parts with the same type of used material might be possible... it's just not practical. But none of this is changes what is owed by law.
Like I said, it's a tough pill to swallow but its the law of the land we live in and there is nothing wrong with following the law.
.
eulairwin,
This is an example of my closing remarks... He is trying to keep this aligned with Insurance rules & regulations.
tcope, I doubt there is a consumer Tort rule that states one can be forced to pay for something they did not want or need. In this case, New siding, wall board, etc. and the labor and other related expenses & inconveniences, Such as living in a home that's under re-construction for weeks or months.
In the case of a house, replacing the parts with the same type of used material might be possible... it's just not practical.
(under-line added for clarity purposes by me FK)
Exactly... so if its more practical and/or less expensive to use New building materials to repair the house (compared to the near impossible task of finding identically aged lumber and other building materials and supplies) then ... fine go ahead and use New...... but not at my expense.
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 05:40 pm Post Subject:
This is an example of my closing remarks... He is trying to keep this aligned with Insurance rules & regulations.
Paying for what was damaged is what the law states is owed. If the person's only recourse is to replace it with new, then that is a separate matter. I can only tell you the way it is and give you several examples of how people normally see this happen (paying the value of a 2007 vehicle instead of paying for a 2010 vehicle and applying depreciation to a tire). Again, it has _nothing_ to do with insurance rules and regulations... as even I've stated, they don't apply to a 3rd party claim.tcope, I doubt there is a consumer Tort rule that states one can be forced to pay for something they did not want or need. In this case, New siding, wall board, etc. and the labor and other related expenses & inconveniences, Such as living in a home that's under re-construction for weeks or months.
Trust me, I understand that this places the person under a hardship. I completely understand that. But what is owed under law is what is owed. When a business needs to buy 10,000 widgets for $10,000 do they just pay the vendor $20,000? Not the best example but my point is the insurance policy pays what the at fault party owes. If the law states its the depreciated amount, then this is what is paid. Call it whatever you want, blame the insurance company if it makes you feel better... it's simply the law and business.
Add your comment