by dmanuel » Mon Aug 16, 2010 05:13 am
A Commercial building was extensively damaged but not total loss. It is repairable. The material costs were depreciated. Is direct labor cost part of the depreciation?
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 06:06 am Post Subject:
A Commercial building was extensively damaged but not total loss. It is repairable
Huh? Anything is repairable... to the extent that it's totally replaced.Is direct labor cost part of the depreciation?
I'm not sure what "direct labor" is. The depreciated cost is actual cash value of the repairs. Labor is labor. You'd be paid what it cost to install new items. That is, the new items are being depreciated, not the labor.Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 08:44 am Post Subject:
I think the OP is asking of labor should be depreciated. Technically it should not. I have seen estimates where it is. Some companies look at the labor for installing...let say carpet as part of the new carpet. Some companies look at the labor for installing the carpet as labor and should be depreciated. You should check with your department of insurance to see if they are allow to do this.
Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:29 am Post Subject:
That is, the new items are being depreciated, not the labor.
Can the labor ever be depreciated that way? I believe it takes the same what it took to install it initially!
You should check with your department of insurance to see if they are allow to do this.
So, you mean it's a state specific thing?
Add your comment