|
Feel good story of the day. Make sure they pay the shop you choose directly.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
I posted this in another thread, but was pointed here to ask: We had a garbage disposal break, leaking water in the cabinets and destroying those cabinets. But insurance only wants to cover replacing those cabinets, doesn’t care if we can’t find matching cabinets for the undamaged cabinets, and only wants to pay for refinishing (but not replacing) the affected sections of wood floor by the cabinet. Everything I’ve heard from various contractors is that insurance usually covers full cabinet replacement, but that’s not what my insurance is saying. Although it makes sense to not necessarily replace undamaged cabinets, replacing the damaged cabinets with like would be very difficult or impossible. Additionally, our insurance does seem to have a clause about change in value of the home from damage, so I’m not sure if that could be used to argue they would need to replace all cabinets to match each other. Anyways, how can we ensure that we are getting the insurance payout that we should be getting, and what’s your experience regarding kitchen cabinet replacement when only some cabinets are damaged beyond repair?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Your insurance is almost certainly not going to cover anything other than the actually damaged cabinets. What does your policy actually say? That's your answer. Ask the insurance rep to tell you where you can find the policy language to review. I feel like the contractors are filling you full of poo poo because they know if they do it they'll get paid regardless, whether that's you or insurance having to foot it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
sheri posted:Your insurance is almost certainly not going to cover anything other than the actually damaged cabinets. The contractors who’ve said this are unrelated to those who might get work out of it, including a couple who were on-site for damage mitigation, a contractor I’ve used in the past for work who has since retired, and the experiences of family members (as both the home owner or a contractor).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
So when I had some roof damage from a storm a few years ago, my contractor wanted to replace the whole half of the roof while the insurance initially only wanted to replace certain sections. The contractor called the claim rep and explained why they felt the whole portion of roof needed replacing and the claim rep agreed and covered the whole thing. It's worth a shot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
Nottherealaborn posted:I posted this in another thread, but was pointed here to ask: Most policies will state in the Declarations or Conditions that they will pay to repair direct damage due to a covered loss. If they can do that by repairing your existing cabinets and repairing the floor, then they will. Few policies, if any, say that they will owe to match, and some will state that they owe for a functional repair and not for aesthetics. I'll handle these one at a time. Cabinets: I assume that only the base cabinets are affected. - how old are they - what are they made of. Typically, unless very old or of extremely high-quality custom build, the cabinet bodies are pressboard, covered either with a solid laminate of a photo-finish vinyl. Sometimes the drawer bodies are also pressboard. The lower-end ("builder's grade") cabinets have pressboard doors and drawer faces. The most common builds have plywood or solid-wood faces and stapled drawers. You can tell a higher-end cabinet by the wood drawers being assembled with dovetail or rabbet joints, as well as the style of drawer guides (the cheapest being a steel or plastic rail, with a plastic guide stapled to the back of the drawer body). - It also depends to some extent on where the damaged cabinets are, and how many of them are affected. Since these water losses usually originate with the sink base cabinet, it can be in the middle of a run, meaning that there has to be a lot of detaching of undamaged cabinets to get to the damaged one(s). Cheap cabinets do not tolerate this well, and special care needs to be taken - which is something you cannot count on with most contractors, for whom time=money. So factor in some detach destruction. If you have a marble countertop or a backsplash tied into a tiled backsplash wall, it can get really ugly. - how old are your cabinets/are they a standard build/is the style no longer available? Nottherealaborn posted:Although it makes sense to not necessarily replace undamaged cabinets, replacing the damaged cabinets with like would be very difficult or impossible. Many cabinet manufacturers have labels in their cabinets. You (or your contractor) have to check every cabinet. If there are any, then the age & style is encoded in it. A good contractor will make a good-faith effort to locate the maker & style. In the event that the cabinets are no longer available - keep in mind that, unless your cabinets pre-date the modular style in most houses today, the bodies are common; it's the faces that change - I will offer to re-face the cabinets, including the toe kicks, which is a viable repair option. If your doors and drawers are undamaged, they can be transferred to new bodies. Again, the number of cabinets involved (as well as the other factors above) dictates whether or not this is cost-effective rather than just replacing all of the base cabinets. Personally, it's a case-by-case call. I have done all of these, including replacing all of the base cabinets, depending on the situation. We don't owe to match aesthetics, and you want to see if there is such a condition as part of the Loss Settlement provisions in your policy. In the absence of such a provision, each carrier has their own call on how far to go. Carriers like Homesite, Farmer's and Allstate tend to dig in their heels on minimizing the scope, but most carriers will draw the line at replacing the uppers if they are undamaged, whether there's an aesthetic match issue or not. Does your flooring run under the cabinets? Floor: If you have a natural hardwood floor (solid wood all the way through, at least 1/2" thick+): the only limitation of repairing vs. replacing all of it is the scope of the damage. Natural wood floors can be repaired and the entire continuous floor refinished. If it's a high-quality engineered-wood product that's pre-finished: If it's less than three years old, it should be available in a matching color (though dye lots can change) and tight joint-lines mean that it can typically be repaired & refinished. If it has a kerfed edge (a groove between each plank) it can be sanded - they actually make a sanding head that'll strip the finish out of the groove. Few floor shops seem to want to do it, because the flat-surface sanding can make the kerf wavy (by varying the depth) if a non-expert is running the sander. I'll typically go for a repair if it's a really large area that is affected or continuous, but I've paid $500 to patch a floor & $25K to refinish the acreage going into every other room on the (typically open-plan) level. Anything else over 3-5-years old: Replace it all. Nottherealaborn posted:and Additionally, our insurance does seem to have a clause about change in value of the home from damage, so I’m not sure if that could be used to argue they would need to replace all cabinets to match each other. That's used to encourage you to make the repairs. There is nothing in the policy that requires you to make the repairs, if you don't mind waiving your recoverable depreciation...but don't try claiming it again (this seems to be a common tactic with roofs: I'll pay to replace a slope or a whole roof. which the owner then opts to patch; then they submit another claim for the whole roof a few years later. We check). On the other hand you can argue that that clause is there to be sure that your home is properly restored to pre-loss condition, so if they're cheaping out, beat them over the head with it. Politely. Also find out if they offer a direct-repair option, where you pay the contractor your deductible, I pay the rest once you are satisfied with the repairs. sheri posted:So when I had some roof damage from a storm a few years ago, my contractor wanted to replace the whole half of the roof while the insurance initially only wanted to replace certain sections. The contractor called the claim rep and explained why they felt the whole portion of roof needed replacing and the claim rep agreed and covered the whole thing. Typically, it'll be because a) there's a lot of damaged areas on the slope, and in the long run it's the same or even less labor to just do the slope; or b) the roof shingles will not pass a brittle test, meaning that spot repairs are not possible PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
I don't know if this is the right thread, but I have a Geico policy on a car for comp/collision but I also have a Hagerty $50k value policy on the car that covers when it is in storage, on the trailer, or in a race track paddock. The car is extremely rarely driven on the street (<10mi/yr), but for it to be registered / plated it needs the Geico policy. Is there a way that these two policies would end up somehow voiding each other due to the other existing? I understand that I am on the hook with respect to value via Geico if anything happens to the car on the street, I'm not concerned about that.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 22:01
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:I don't know if this is the right thread, but I have a Geico policy on a car for comp/collision but I also have a Hagerty $50k value policy on the car that covers when it is in storage, on the trailer, or in a race track paddock. The car is extremely rarely driven on the street (<10mi/yr), but for it to be registered / plated it needs the Geico policy. No, no risk of them canceling each other out. Worst case is that GEICO or Hagerty have to investigate if the other coverage is applicable for any loss, which could add some extra time, but that’s it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 13:41
|
|
|
Literally Lewis Hamilton posted:No, no risk of them canceling each other out. Worst case is that GEICO or Hagerty have to investigate if the other coverage is applicable for any loss, which could add some extra time, but that’s it. Perfect! Thank you 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
Ok, weird question (maybe not that weird but I'm stumped) I had some minor damage to a rental car. I don't own a car, so don't carry personal auto insurance, however, I have rental car coverage from two sources: - Amex platinum, which I paid for the rental with and declines the CDW, activating the coverage - The liability insurance portion of my renters policy, which says "We cover damages a covered person is legally obligated to pay for personal injury and property damage caused by an occurrence, and vehicle theft, during the policy period resulting from a covered person's use of a vehicle, rented by, borrowed, furnished to or made available to you or a family member, if the limit of liability shown in the Coverage Summary is $1 million or more, provided the rental or loan does not exceed 60 days." (I know this is weird for a renters policy, it's a weird policy-- it also includes kidnapping insurance! -- that I have for $REASONS that involved another unrelated boring insurance story). My question is, they both state that their secondary to any underlying primary insurance policy, presumably an auto policy, but since I don't have an auto policy, who's on deck here? I'm leaning towards Amex, since they explicitly advertise this as a rental car policy and it covers damage to the rental vehicle, and the other is a kind of general liability backstop (if that's the right term) to property and people. I already have a claim started with Amex (when I returned the car and gave the claim # to the rental company), but do I need to open a second one with my other carrier, and let them sort it out? I don't anticipate the damage being anywhere close to the $75,000 limit in the Amex platinum policy. State is NY, fwiw.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
Do you have $1mm in liability? Looks like it only activates if you do to my lay person reading. If you don't then you don't have other insurance. Opening a claim on the renters will solely serve to raise your rates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 15:23
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:Do you have $1mm in liability? Looks like it only activates if you do to my lay person reading. If you don't then you don't have other insurance. Opening a claim on the renters will solely serve to raise your rates. Yeah I do. $5mm actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Yeah I do. $5mm actually. I would just wait for Amex to make a fuss. As far you know you don't have auto insurance because you don't have a car. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
If I don't have auto insurance, is it pretty much impossible to get an umbrella policy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
Pretty much. You can get a named operator/non owner auto policy but umbrella policy contracts are almost always structured that they provide coverage on an excess basis to auto and homeowner/renter policies, so they won’t sell you one since they’d be primary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 14:09
|
|
|
This is why I have insane rich persons renters insurance that includes things like $100,000 in kidnapping coverage and a clause saying I have to buy a separate rider if my household staff rises above 5 people. It's about 3-4x more expensive than a normal renters policy but a few hundred bucks cheaper than buying 3 different policies. I get a liability coverage amount that would be what I wanted from an umbrella, and liability from rented or borrowed vehicles up to 60 days if you don't own a vehicle. I only found out about it because I had the same problem of trying to get an umbrella without being a car owner, and a former colleague referred me to his insurance guy. It's normally sold to people who lease mansions in the Hamptons or Miami I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:This is why I have insane rich persons renters insurance that includes things like $100,000 in kidnapping coverage and a clause saying I have to buy a separate rider if my household staff rises above 5 people. It's about 3-4x more expensive than a normal renters policy but a few hundred bucks cheaper than buying 3 different policies. I get a liability coverage amount that would be what I wanted from an umbrella, and liability from rented or borrowed vehicles up to 60 days if you don't own a vehicle. Yeah, I'm looking to buy a house, and I want an umbrella policy on the top of homeowners, but I don't own a car. I may just see how much it is to bump the limits on the homeowners, I guess, when the time comes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
Like Hamilton suggested you should look into a non-owned car, operators policy. It's for people that don't own a car but expect to rent or borrow and want their own coverage. I'm not sure how it compares price wise. Not my department.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:Like Hamilton suggested you should look into a non-owned car, operators policy. It's for people that don't own a car but expect to rent or borrow and want their own coverage. I'm not sure how it compares price wise. Not my department. I did at one point, and it was wildly loving expensive. They assume you're doing that to borrow all of your friends' Lambos, essentially.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
I think when I looked into it they explained it's mostly for people who rent cars all the time for work or whatever, and having your own policy is cheaper than buying the rental company's ripoff CDW and liability upgrade options every single time. In NYC I was quoted like $700 a year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 04:39
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:I did at one point, and it was wildly loving expensive. They assume you're doing that to borrow all of your friends' Lambos, essentially. You might want to try shop this with an agent. Non owners policies are usually not that pricey. What might have happened was you were missing a continuous coverage discount which is pretty substantial for most carriers. The agent can confirm this for you though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 05:36
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:I think when I looked into it they explained it's mostly for people who rent cars all the time for work or whatever, and having your own policy is cheaper than buying the rental company's ripoff CDW and liability upgrade options every single time. In NYC I was quoted like $700 a year. Non-owner/named op policies are only liability policies, they don’t include comp/collision/etc. since they have no idea what cars you might drive. There’s no way to accurately price the risk when their exposure might be $1,000 for a clapped out Kia Rio you borrowed or the $1MM hypercar you rented in Vegas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 12:24
|
|
|
Hey all, looks like the OP is super old, is there an updated primer for buying insurance somewhere y'all recommend? I've had one company for about 5 years and I want to get some competition and see if I can save and maintain coverage. Or if that's not what I should do I'm open to that. This is in Colorado, home auto and classic auto insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
StormDrain posted:Hey all, looks like the OP is super old, is there an updated primer for buying insurance somewhere y'all recommend? I've had one company for about 5 years and I want to get some competition and see if I can save and maintain coverage. Or if that's not what I should do I'm open to that. This is in Colorado, home auto and classic auto insurance. Call an independent agent in your area. That's basically all there is to it. Boilerplate personal insurance doesn't move all that quickly since it's governed by statute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
Virtue posted:Call an independent agent in your area. That's basically all there is to it. Boilerplate personal insurance doesn't move all that quickly since it's governed by statute. Right on, that's what I was going to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
StormDrain posted:Hey all, looks like the OP is super old, is there an updated primer for buying insurance somewhere y'all recommend? I've had one company for about 5 years and I want to get some competition and see if I can save and maintain coverage. Or if that's not what I should do I'm open to that. This is in Colorado, home auto and classic auto insurance. if thread regulars have specific recommendations for updating the OP, please compile and post a list and I'll make the changes
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
Maybe a random question, but are you required to notify your auto insurance and open a claim for any vehicle accident? We just went through this where another car basically scuffed the side of our car with their mirror plastic while merging. As it involved another party, I opened a claim with my insurance just because that's what I always thought you should do, even though it looked like the scuff would just be easily wiped off. adjustors went through it, found not at fault; I took it into the insurance networked body shop which found no damage nor repairs required, and claim was closed. I talked with my local contact with the insurance to verify this doesn't affect my premiums, and they asked me why I opened the claim and said I could have just gone to any shop (who probably would've also found no damage) and just go on my way. My thinking was that I did always need to notify my auto insurance anyways (especially if there's another party), and the networked inspection in the claimwas to ensure there actually isn't any hidden damage since I'm not a car expert, and also because we don't know what the other party is going to claim Am i wrong (or maybe outdated and overly cautious)? The idea of just moving on and calling it a day after someone hit me seems foreign to me, but if they're right I'd like to know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
Usually your contract has a duties owed section that states you will notify the insurer timely, but practically speaking people simply don’t do this if they don’t intend on pursuing coverage through their policy and it’s no biggie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 01:25
|
|
|
Literally Lewis Hamilton posted:Usually your contract has a duties owed section that states you will notify the insurer timely, but practically speaking people simply don’t do this if they don’t intend on pursuing coverage through their policy and it’s no biggie. Thanks! I guess I really should have just taken care of this myself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
If your agent can guarantee that this won’t affect your rates, tell them to put it in writing. They won’t, and can’t, because your risk is calculated upon your loss experience - which has nothing to do with anything being paid and everything to do with anything that happens to you and your insured property. The fact that you are not at fault helps, but the fact remains is that there was an incident - and that affects the algorithm. I do this for a living and I am telling you: do not report incidents to your insurance company unless there is an actual loss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 04:15
|
|
|
Also it's not.just your own personal loss experience that affects your rates. If the insurance industry as a whole has a bad year they will likely file an overall rate increase for your state and it will impact you!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:If your agent can guarantee that this won’t affect your rates, tell them to put it in writing. Yeesh, I should have slowed down and thought this through now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 04:58
|
|
|
Interesting, state farm's California freeze on new home owners policies extends to current customers with good loss records as well. My agent gave me the name of a broker but I guess this is what it will take to dump state farm after 20 years. Maybe I'll try to keep my "all perils" scheduled item policy but eh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 15:14
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:Interesting, state farm's California freeze on new home owners policies extends to current customers with good loss records as well. My agent gave me the name of a broker but I guess this is what it will take to dump state farm after 20 years. Maybe I'll try to keep my "all perils" scheduled item policy but eh. Can you expound on this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
Dango Bango posted:Can you expound on this? https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-06-02/allstate-state-farm-stop-selling-new-home-insurance-in-california They stopped. I imagine a lot of non-renewals will start coming out. Or people like me who have 7 lines and no claims will jump ship. (cars, fire, umbrella, personal items policy, earthquake (CEA))
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-06-02/allstate-state-farm-stop-selling-new-home-insurance-in-california I knew they pulled out of new business in the state but didn't know they were taking action on existing. Sounds like you didn't get an outright non-renewal notice though, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
Dango Bango posted:I knew they pulled out of new business in the state but didn't know they were taking action on existing. Sounds like you didn't get an outright non-renewal notice though, correct? No, that part is speculation on my part. I just called yesterday to get a quote on a house we were thinking about putting in an offer on and got referred out. We have an old fixed deductible policy ($1k) that they stopped writing a bit back as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:No, that part is speculation on my part. I just called yesterday to get a quote on a house we were thinking about putting in an offer on and got referred out. We have an old fixed deductible policy ($1k) that they stopped writing a bit back as well. Well yes, that would be new business if you are buying a new house. Renewals refer to renewing your current policies with your current properties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
sheri posted:Well yes, that would be new business if you are buying a new house. Yup. Sorry if I came across wrong, I get it but I just wanted to hear it from my agent in case there were exceptions for existing customers moving or whatever. I don't expect to get non-renewed but I bet large tranches of people will be if this keeps up. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
Thinking about getting insurance for my wife and I directly from the provider and not getting it through an employer, is there any reason to NOT do that? I imagine the employer maybe gets better rates, but I don’t think there’s any huge reason to go through them. I don’t know how long I’ll have this job and I’d rather have something more permanent locked down just in case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 11:27
|
|