by Guest » Thu Jan 18, 2007 02:34 am
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 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'?
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 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 03:03 am Post Subject:
OK...well I am not a claims adjuster and I don't claim to be...but this is my thought and I could be totally wrong so dont take my word for it....Also please register and join the community...
Ok again and I know I say it alot...but it is also going to depend on the company you are with.. From what I understand in the claims area the insurance company will pay to try and have the floor restored...if that does not happen they would pay to replace the floor of like quality...
I do not thibk that they are just going to give you money for the floor if your not actually going to A) Have the tiles replaced which you already said they will not match or B) They will have to replace the floor of like kind and quality...
At this point I believe that the insurance company will just pay for the restoration that was done on the tiles...if you want to get a new floor or new tiles they will prob pay however you will most likly have to prove that you A) got the tiles replaced or B) got the whole floor replaced. Meaning they are going to want to know what the money was used for receipts photos etc, and they may want you to use thier contractor or deal directly with the contractor.
Now if the insruance company does agree to compensate you with out proof that the work is being done, just becareful as they may not cover the floor in the event something like this happens again....
Really you need to contact your agent and discuss it with them as they are going to know how your company will handle the claim..
The above are just a few senierios so I can not tell you exactly...
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 05:23 am Post Subject:
whose guest? a ghost? wooooooooooo! yeah please do register guest
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 06:17 pm Post Subject:
Yeah nique1221 is right. Maybe the best thing that you can do is to talk to your agents in this case. You need to clarify this issue with the insurance company. They can really answer you answers and concerns well.
Good luck and Good Day!!
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 09:38 am Post Subject:
Hi,
Sorry I wasn't able to come back to this forum soon. Well, I've talked to the 'adjuster' -- he's acting on behalf on the insurance company (there is no agent involved as I purchased this policy directly through postal mail), and my impression is that it really boils down to how I can reason and justify the case.
I can't replace just that part of the floor because the difference in tonality may make it look worse; yet replacing the entire floor seems to be a drastic solution and the cost may not be agreeable to the insurance company. If you are in my shoes, how would you reason the case? What do you think would be a reasonable conpensation?
P.S. Is there some way to move this thread to the Claims and Payments Issues forum? Think this should be rightfully there :)
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 08:01 pm Post Subject:
Clarence I would try and go for getting the whole floor replaced if you cant just replace parts of the floor. Start big and work your way down,...I am sure you will be able to come up with some sort of comprimise.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 05:02 pm Post Subject:
The adjuster says he does not think the insurance company would agree to replacing the whole floor. The situation seems to be that it's better that I come up with a figure or some basis of compensation which I can work with the adjuster.
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 05:43 am Post Subject:
Good Luck to you Carence...that is a tough situation and I wish you the best with it. I would keep pushing on getting the whole floor redone...
Add your comment