Property Insurance Claim

[josephjnapoleon]

So, had a car travel through my property today. Destroyed part of the fence, gardens, raised stamped concrete patio, patio furniture etc.

Any advice on dealing with my insurance company on this? I filed the claim, and there’s a contractor coming out tomorrow.

Based on the conversations I’ve had with my carrier and their contractor, I “shouldn’t expect too much”.

This guy bowled down a 30 yr old fence that can’t be remade with todays materials (that I’ve been keeping up meticulously because I love the aesthetic in front of my 1900s farm house). Big chips off of my poured patio that will never be the same no matter how you repair it. 15 year old Rose of Sharon, that was my wife’s favourite plant… 3 gardens, patio furniture etc.

I understand insurance companies aren’t in the business to lose money, but I feel like I’m going to get screwed here on face value all day.

Any advice would be appreciated.

There’s been a formal post lice report filed, I have their insurance, police were on scene, my ins knows all of the facts at this point.

 

[shiftybroccoli]

@josephjnapoleon Sounds like you have lots of information about the fence. Make sure you provide that.

You're right, the insurance companies are not out there to lose money, but they also aren't trying to screw you over as many seem to think.

Companies need to be picky and stringent to keep prices more affordable.

All i can say is that you need to provide all the information you have. A 30 year old fence isn't worth as much as a new one, but if you have proof thst it was rebuilt, they need to see that.

 

[sovereignone]

@josephjnapoleon A lot of this comes down to risks you assume with an older and/or heritage home.

As far as the insurer is concerned, you had a fence before and will have a fence after. You had a patio before, you will have a patio after. You had a plant before, you will have a plant after. Their obligation is to replace it with like kind and quality. When that's no an option due to age, rarity, etc. they will do their best to replicate it with the closest available item, materials, process, etc. or there may be provisions in your policy to pay out based on cash value.

Having the other party's insurer won't really change the outcome of the claim. Your insurer may subrogate against them to recover some of their loss/payout for this claim, but that's not your concern.

 

[josephjnapoleon]

@sovereignone Thanks for the detailed response. I think I may be understanding this wrong, but should my insurer not be advocating for the best reparations possible with the responsible persons insurer? I guess, shouldn’t my insurer, in good faith to me, as a long term customer, be pushing for the most fair outcome for me?

I haven’t spoken to the adjuster yet, but a project manager for their go-to service provider came by today and it was kind of weird. The conversation started off with “well, we always say it might not be worth making a claim, and your deductible is $1600”…I corrected her and said, no it’s $300”….from there it was very clear that the contractor, nor the adjuster was “on my side”. I recorded a conversation with the adjuster tonight and plainly asked “so you have the offenders insurance info, are you not advocating for the highest/fairest price to make me whole?” They plain out said to me that, no, they’re trying to get the lowest price and then go after the offenders insurance to recoup the costs. This is insane to me. It’s on the verge of criminal.

 

[sovereignone]

@josephjnapoleon

Thanks for the detailed response. I think I may be understanding this wrong, but should my insurer not be advocating for the best reparations possible with the responsible persons insurer? I guess, shouldn’t my insurer, in good faith to me, as a long term customer, be pushing for the most fair outcome for me?

No because the other insurer is not paying for your damages. Not initially, anyway.

When you suffer a loss due to an identified third-party you essentially have two options;

1) Go through your insurance, get the damage covered per the limits of your party, subject to your deductible, and let them sort of the rest.

2) Sue the other party, providing they are negligent and/or liable and have their insurer respond.

The former ensures your damage is repaired as quickly as possible through your own policy. In doing so, you essentially waive the right to sue the other party since that right is passed onto your insurer through a process/provision called subrogation. But keep in mind that it is your insurer who has paid any and all money upfront to make you whole, and they do so without any guarantee they'll get anything back from the other party.

The latter option avoids paying your deductible and dealing with any potential impact to premium, but requires you to cover any and all legal costs and repair costs upfront, unless you wanna live in a damaged home while you wait for the legal battle to play out. Almost no one does this, cuz it's foolish.

So no, your insurer is not advocating for the best reparations possible with the other party, and your loyalty has nothing to do with it. Your policy pays out, per your policy terms. End of story.

The conversation started off with “well, we always say it might not be worth making a claim, and your deductible is $1600”…I corrected her and said, no it’s $300”

Well they're saying that to cover their butts, and probably also so it doesn't seem like they're just in it to do any and all repairs on the insurer's dime. They can't speak to any potential impact on your premium or coverage, and they don't know the ins and outs of your policy in terms of any exclusions or sublimits. It might not be worth it to make a claim. That's a fair statement. At this point where they've been sent by the insurer, though, it's probably moot as there's still a record on file. If it doesn't impact your rate it could still leave the insurer chasing you down for proof you did the repairs yourself if you opted not to go through insurance (in order to continue offering coverage on an undamaged structure.)

On the deductible front, $300 is incredibly low. Are you sure your deductible is $300? $1600 sounds closer to a normal deductible on a homeowners policy, except I usually see it in $500 increments.

Again, your last couple sentences tell me you either have never been informed how insurance works, never cared to learn, or are blissfully ignorant. Maybe "lowest cost" isn't the best choice of word, but they're not going to spend more than is necessary. Once the scope of damage has been assessed the insurer would generally shop the work around to several vendors in the area who will bid on it. The insurer is generally going to take the lowest bid. If a home is damaged by fire and 3 companies bid and one can do the repairs for $175,000, one for $200,000 and one for $225,000... why should they go with the $200K or $225K one? All vendors received the same estimate and scope of work.

And again, the insurer is agreeing to pay all of this with NO GUARANTEE they will get all or any of that back from the at-fault party. If they do, it'll be after they settle your claim and have a final amount to submit as a demand, and even then it can be a lot of back-and-forth and is generally only pursued if it's a high amount AND the case is pretty cut-and-dry.