- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: House burned to the ground; insurance Q
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:51 am to OysterPoBoy
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:51 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
They think she’s lying
quote:
I do too.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:36 am to SHMILL
Insurance companies seldom (if ever) pay the full insured amount without an attorney representing the insured. They save billions by short-changing unrepresented customers.
And, no, I am not a lawyer.
And, no, I am not a lawyer.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:01 am to SHMILL
what state is this in and who is the carrier
Posted on 10/1/19 at 4:25 am to SHMILL
if you can’t prove it now, how are you going to prove it in a lawsuit?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:12 am to SHMILL
I think this is BS. If you have been paying insurance for $160,000 worth of contents and the house burns to the ground than you should receive $160,000.
The insurance was happy to take all of the premiums for years at that value without proof. If insurance works like this there should be some verification on the insurance company’s part when you select the coverage that you are not over insuring the contents.
The insurance was happy to take all of the premiums for years at that value without proof. If insurance works like this there should be some verification on the insurance company’s part when you select the coverage that you are not over insuring the contents.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:29 am to SHMILL
quote:
She’s dead. The stuff was in the house. It burned to the ground.
Burden of proof is still NOT on the insurance company. Period.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:33 am to SHMILL
The Saturday night before I evacuated for Katrina, I took pictures of everything in my house. Every room and inside of every closet and cabinet.
The result was I got a very good contents settlement. Had I not taken pictures I might have been screwed. That’s documentation.
The result was I got a very good contents settlement. Had I not taken pictures I might have been screwed. That’s documentation.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:45 am to cssamerican
quote:A couple of salient facts to consider:
The insurance was happy to take all of the premiums for years at that value without proof. If insurance works like this there should be some verification on the insurance company’s part when you select the coverage that you are not over insuring the contents.
The Insurance Industry is the single strongest long-term lobby in the country and in each state. The playing field is completely slanted in their direction.
An insurance company will let you pay for life insurance for an already dead person or homeowners insurance for a non-existent house. They are not in business to protect individuals from their own stupidity.
A reasonable & prudent person should regularly document what is being covered by their own contents insurance. Once granny died, some survivor (the executor/executrix perhaps?) should have done this with the residence & it’s contents.
It’s what reasonable & prudent folks do.
I’d assume that hiring a competent attorney will help.
PS: Pics of the gd (assuming she’s of-age!). TIA
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 5:58 am
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:53 am to Crimson1L
quote:
ACV v. RCV
This. Contents coverage can be very tricky, assuming you’re in Louisiana.
Until she proves what the items were worth she’s only getting ACV regardless of whether or not a lawyer is involved. If she can prove it, she’ll get more (the amount of depreciation they took off the value of the items), but only up to the maximum of $160k.
Now, if the contents coverage on the policy is listed as $160k ACV not Replacement Cost, then she’s up shite creek without a paddle.
If some of the items were expensive, it may be possible to call the stores where they came from and they may atill have records of the purchases. Might think about that.
Otherwise, take what they already offered and call it a day. Sometimes it’s not worth fighting.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 5:55 am
Posted on 10/1/19 at 5:57 am to SHMILL
quote:
The daughter wrote her list of contents (came out to $210,000 for everything),
How big of a house was this? $210,000 for an elderly person? Yeah I’m calling Bs too unless she was wealthy and this was a bigger house. Outside of my grandfather’s guns which are in a high end safe, most of my grandparents shite is old as hell and not worth much at all. I’ve never decorated an entire house, but $100,000 would go a hell of a long way to buy new furniture and clothes.
I’m trying to figure out how someone gets to $210,000 without pictures and some sort of evidence? That’s damn good memory of someone else’s house.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:01 am to cssamerican
quote:
If insurance works like this there should be some verification on the insurance company’s part when you select the coverage that you are not over insuring the contents.
They do. It’s called a policy document that reads “contents coverage is listed at Actual Cash Value”. By accepting that policy and paying the premium, you are agreeing to that.
There are laws in place to combat what 98% of the ignorant general public bitches about insurance about.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:02 am to SHMILL
My clients house burned down just over two years ago, he is still buying things and submitting receipts to make insurance claims. It’s an exhausting process where everything you buy is earmarked and can be claimed against the insurance companies list for that items value. Luckily my clients were self employed and worked from home so they kept meticulous records since they wrote off as much as they could. The fire was an improper fireplace install by the builder, but the house was just out of legal recourse period for the insurance company to sue builder so they ate loss, he was rebuilt in under a year.
If you have records, pictures, anything to show value I would take this to an attorney and consider lawsuit against Ins company. By simple notification of a potential lawsuit the company will in many cases be more flexible. Call a local news outlet and tell them the story of her deceased grandmothers home burning to the ground and insurance company hard balling her. The more aggressive the better your outcome
If you have records, pictures, anything to show value I would take this to an attorney and consider lawsuit against Ins company. By simple notification of a potential lawsuit the company will in many cases be more flexible. Call a local news outlet and tell them the story of her deceased grandmothers home burning to the ground and insurance company hard balling her. The more aggressive the better your outcome
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:06 am to soccerfüt
quote:
An insurance company will let you pay for life insurance for an already dead person or homeowners insurance for a non-existent house.
Your credibility ended with this statement. There is zero insurable interest on a dead person or on a non-existent house.
Now, it’s possible to insure those things via fraud, sure. But at the time of loss there will be zero payout. Period, the end. No questions.
Hiring an attorney in this particular situation probably won’t help much at all unless he or she is a miracle worker or this is in a state with less strict laws than Louisiana.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 6:10 am
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:13 am to soccerfüt
A reasonable & prudent person should regularly document what is being covered by their own contents insurance. Once granny died, some survivor (the executor/executrix perhaps?) should have done this with the residence & it’s contents.
It’s what reasonable & prudent folks do."
The OP is asking for help and not a lecture. He is dealing with the situation as it is not as he wishes it was. That's all that can be done at this point.
It’s what reasonable & prudent folks do."
The OP is asking for help and not a lecture. He is dealing with the situation as it is not as he wishes it was. That's all that can be done at this point.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:13 am to TDsngumbo
Try again there sport, they will let you pay for the things I listed. They will actually take the money.
Obviously they would have to refund it when it is proven that the policies were written without a basis in reality.
Odd subfact: in some states, you can legally take out an life insurance policy on someone without that person’s knowledge.
Obviously they would have to refund it when it is proven that the policies were written without a basis in reality.
Odd subfact: in some states, you can legally take out an life insurance policy on someone without that person’s knowledge.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:26 am to soccerfüt
quote:
they will let you pay for the things I listed. They will actually take the money.
I know, I didn’t refute that. What I called you out on was your implication that an insurance company will knowingly let you do that, though, which they won’t because of the lack of insurable interest.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:43 am to TDsngumbo
I never suggested that an Insurance Company would actively pursue a fantastical line. That’s a reach to suggest such from my post.
My point was to illustrate that an individual’s personal responsibility was not the primary concern of any Insurance Company. (And that point is indisputable)
Let’s agree that the Insurance industry has had and continues to enjoy an OK place in American consumer case law.
My point was to illustrate that an individual’s personal responsibility was not the primary concern of any Insurance Company. (And that point is indisputable)
Let’s agree that the Insurance industry has had and continues to enjoy an OK place in American consumer case law.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 6:47 am
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:49 am to SHMILL
I burned down my house in Venetian Isles in New Orleans. To the ground.
I maxed my insurance on everything.
I was told to threaten insurance co with threat of independent adjuster and attorneys. They literally sent me a check within the week.
I maxed my insurance on everything.
I was told to threaten insurance co with threat of independent adjuster and attorneys. They literally sent me a check within the week.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 6:53 am to blueboxer1119
quote:
I burned down my house in Venetian Isles in New Orleans. To the ground. I maxed my insurance on everything.
I was told to threaten insurance co with threat of independent adjuster and attorneys. They literally sent me a check within the week.

Popular
Back to top


0







