Paid on a “supported” only
Hello everyone
Newbie here … My homeowners insurance has been giving me a big hassle as a result of hail damage from the spring. They were basically going to pay me to replace my aluminum pipe fitting, only 1 side of the house that have been damaged. Since then it has been shown that the same color / style of ring can not be found, and the company is now willing to pay for the entire 4 sides of the house to replace. However, they will only pay for the remaining 3 sides of a “sustainable basis.” That is, will only pay once I have signed a contract with a contractor, thus demonstrating that the work I have done.
It is a common practice for homeowners required to pay only for the company on a sustainable basis? Thanks for any help!
by : misterblue
Tags: Paid on a "supported" only
Readers Comments (6)
This is the FAR COLUMN and is ready for widgets, click here to add some now!This is the POST COLUMN and is ready for widgets, click here to add some now!
Yes, very, very, very common.
I’m just going to pay to replace it because due to a stroke of luck (no damage) must be replaced. If the job is not done, then there is no need to pay for doing it.
If the question is really, I can write the check and I pocket the money, the answer is no.
Dan
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Oops, I wanted to add, I do not know anything about New York law and insurance settlements as they occur in this state. I know a thing or 2 practices insurance California and my answer is based on California. I doubt that New York is very different from the reason the contract agrees to pay later if ….
My question would be like as a regulator has been shown that the ring was no longer available or could be combined, if a contractor has not already been involved?
Its typical that an insurance company or estimate for repair approved repay this estimate, but as long as the depreciation holdback where repairs actually completed, this obviously depends on what policy you have. Or, if there were no external adjustment involved and where in dealing directly with a rep, I would need a signed contract with the contractor, depreciation, and probably still retain until the job is done.
Please note if you have a mortgage on your home insurance company has the right to insert the control to ensure their interest in your property is protected as a name are also provided.
Hello everyone,
While I appreciate the answers, it seems to me you’re sterotyping as well as the insurance adjuster did! I gues some thought it would happen.
Long story short …
Last April I suffered severe hail damage to one side of the aluminum pipe fitting …. ins. company then sent to a regulator and an inspector roof. The company has separated the cost and sent me a check for about $ 1000 for the roof, and $ 4500 (less than $ 1,000 deductible) for damage siding. Since then my attention was that the connection can not be replaced, just do not sell anything like it, period. The governor has returned to my house about 4 times more during the summer, take pictures, make phone calls, until he admitted that just can not find anything like it.
Then the rules changed. They are grouped in damage to the roof with the damage siding, even though I had already obtained estimates for the damage only fitting. Myslf I planned on fixing the roof, or waiting until next year. They came with a number of $ 18,000 to pay for siding, roof, facia, gutters and the removal and replacement.
The problem is that, through a battle between my company and the regulator, my entrepreneur now believes he is entitled to $ 18,000 for the whole though a good fitting of $ 1000, which is for my one roof. The insurance company only pay me once I’ve signed a contract. The contractor wants all the money because of the “incurred basis” rule, know that you can not get the insurance money to sign a contract with them. And through their multiple conversations without me involved, the agent led him to believe that he would take the money, completely ignoring the fact that the $ 1000 for the roof had separated early in the process, and that money should not go to the contractor.
So … NO, I’m not looking for the money. I want my house fixed! But now I can not get it fixed for what the insurance company is willing to pay, because they took 4 months to agree on a fair price to get all the fitting replaced. I thought I had a good businessman in a row, but I can not trust him either. And because of bad weather approaching in New York, I’m having trouble finding another contractor at the time.
And this is only part of it … I have aluminum, so I am entitled to the replacement of aluminum (to my agent) and a contractor, of course, put on vinyl, but I’m not even agree to give me money for what an entrepreneur wants to put on vinyl. Aluminum prices are sky high!
Bottom line is, I’m very frustrated with the summer long battle with the insurance company to repair what it would cost to have all my fixed fitting. They gave me a huge number down right away, hoping that I would go and use the money to buy a 4-wheel or something. I just want my house fixed, but now I can not trust the contractor, and I certainly can not trust the insurance adjuster after 4 months of fighting him tooth and nail costs.
I’v been a faithful home / customers’ cars for 20 years without other claims, then paying tens of thousands of dollars in prizes, and I got very poor customer service when I needed it.
That’s why was wondering if it was common for declarations to be paid on a sustainable basis. Thank you.
Still not sure that the whole thing is based on sustained or what the problem is there.
Bottom line, have the contractor you want to use to produce an estimate for the aluminum pipe fitting. If it only does the work of fitting are a roofer to provide a quote for roof repair needed, the citation must be free. Take both items and present them to recommend this adjustment is the cost to complete the repairs have been approved by the insurance contractor of choice. Each insurance company will review these estimates down against them and determine where the differences are and work to solve.
Ensure that contractors working on separate material than their estimate and provide detailed price.
The governor is not out to get you, they’re just trying to justify any additional cost or paper payment period. You have to understand that there is a lot of regulatory red tape at the end that must be satisfied before you can just pay something.
Speaking for myself, when dealing with a complaint can only adapt what is in front of you. You can not look at the prize a person brings in or how long someone has been insured with your company and issue a check only on this. So you take that out of the equation, because it really does not matter when you adjust the complaint. We must treat everyone fairly and ethically legally. This means that I must be just right to the person who has only been insured for 1 year with me over 20 years. Now, if you questioned his cover and a gray area, well then I could look at someone’s claim history or how long they have been secured, etc.
The problem is that contractors are known to change their prices depending on what they think they can get by with, rather than what the job is really worth. The insurance company is not responsible for contractors inflate their prices.
Just tell your contractor to give you a quote and stop buying the quote and work with the insurance company.
Also, what I missed in your story is if the job total is $ 18,000 + $ 1000 for siding for the roof, $ 19K total. They write a check for $ 18K, paid off. (19K – 18K = 1K deductible).
Thanks again,
Well, my numbers were not accurate. Bottom Line: The Company had previously separated the roof from the ring, and I did get a separate estimation.
After it was determined that they could not find a comparable aluminum fitting (and the boy have been trying for weeks!) Then agreed on the basis of payment incurred. They also then combines both areas of damage, even though they were initially separated. I could not get the roof repaired immediately and kept the Euro 1000 party.
In fact, the insurance company says it will pay $ 17,500 for all combined. (Total cost $ 18,500 less $ 1000 deduction.)
The contractor, which I thought was on my side, he wants all the money b / c they insist the cost will be $ 18,500 for the fitting (includes roof, facia, gutters and replacement which the insurance company finally agreed). The company believes only work insurnace ring worth $ 17,500. The entrepreneur knows that I must sign a contract to get all the money, and now they want everything. At first I was told later that we could work to reduce costs later if necessary; Now, after seeing the situation has dragged on and see all the money on the table, the contractor is forgetting that conversation we had in my dining room. You can not trust anyone when it comes to home repairs.
What I was screwed trusted by both sides to reach an agreement. Instead, the employer now sees all the money involved and they want everything for the only connection. The insurance adjuster apparently forgot to tell them, and hoped he would forget also that $ 1000 of that money is for my roof, which is corrupt and should not be included in value incurred.
All SUPPORTED has intentionally caused confusion among all 3 of us, in my opinion.
I specifically asked the regulator to keep separate the amounts, and he shook it and said I would post their esteem for the whole thing. They do not work in my interest. State Farm Insurance It is. At this point, certainly I believe without a shadow of doubt that they were looking at every corner for not paying me a fair amount.
I’m back to square one as far as trying to figure out a fair solution. I need to get new contractor estimates, and it is not easy to do in September. That will surely inflate their prices this time of year.
Thanks for listening. Among other things now that I explained the situation more thoroughly, where are all those people who stereotyped me and said it looked like I just wanted the money? I WANT MY HOUSE FIXED!