re: UPC insurance is horrible

quote:

---

This seems like a pretty good thread to remind everyone - if your premiums are substantially lower than your neighbors and such, don’t be shocked when your coverage is lacking.

---

This could be a failure on the agents part to properly explain the policy to the insured. Of course, I ask questions and personally know my agent as well. It is also a good idea to find out about replacement costs and pro rating for your policy.

quote:

---

But UPC has a wind driven loss limitation, which specifically reads and applies to HO3 AND HO5 the following perils have been added as losses we do not insure for:

"Rain, snow, sleet or dust to the interior of a building unless a covered peril first damages the building causing an opening in a roof or outside wall door or window and the rain,snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through the opening."

---

I’m not reading this on my policy unless it’s an amendment I’m not aware of.

Either way, it leaves a path to claim the door was damaged and created an opening. If the door was sealed and water got through, then it had to have created an opening. It’s not specific how big the opening has to be to in order to be considered an opening. Further if the water got through between the window panel and the wood, the wind surely could have cause that opening.

Again get the contractor that installed the door out there and/or call the manufacturer to see how that may have occurred, and if your door is at risk because it got water in its core.

quote:

---

Not trying to derail as I'm on OP's side, but from a Title 22 perspective you are not technically correct. Your policyholder bill of rights only says they have to give you detailed clarification on canceling or non-renewing you...but as a claimant they can simply point to "policy language" and keep it very general on a claims denial notification. That is why you have to walk them down with the other steps I provided that I'm not typing again. OP either got it or he doesn't. I did my job in this thread.

---

You are wrong. In both circumstances the policy holder plainly has “a right to a written explanation” of both cancellation/nonrenewal and a denied claim.

If they are denying because of policy language, at some point in time they will have to say what that language is

quote:

---

This is precisely what I am escalating you to the UPC manager via my agent. I want them to know the door was perfectly fine before the storm and during the storm became damaged or lost it’s integrity and allowed water through and subsequently damaged the floors. My point to Chad was this storm made opening in the door is what needs special attention. How big of a hole are we talking to satisfy the policy? Even if it was the door jam gasket that ripped or was somehow made askew by the wind amd rain entered from that point over hours of rain could be a nice large puddle on your wood floors enough to damage.

---

all you are doing is driving home exactly what wind driven rain is and what it does. this is just a classic example of another case.

quote:

---

That being said, wind driven rain is excluded on some policies, and most insureds are not aware.

---

Just about every single homeowners policy is going to exclude wind driven rain, unless you specifically ask for the coverage and pay more premium for it.

quote:

---

To me

---

stop it.

quote:

---

pushed through otherwise normally sealed openings.

---

like a front door.

quote:

---

I mean say one window is knocked out for $500 and causes $10,000 of water damage? How your deductible works?

---

this is not a deductible issue. A hurricane deductible applies in a hurricane claim.

quote:

---

So….are there H03 policies that are ACV? My policy reads as if it is definitely RCV but there may be non recoverable depreciation on dwelling

---

Yes. Citizens is a prime example.
Another issue is “co-insurance”, meaning if you are underinsured more than 80% replacement cost, then you will not be able to have recoverable depreciation in some cases.

quote:

---

Yes. Citizens is a prime example.
Another issue is “co-insurance”, meaning if you are underinsured more than 80% replacement cost, then you will not be able to have recoverable depreciation in some cases.

---

False alarm, clerical mistake.

I’m aware of the coinsurance bullshite. That should really be on the declarations of the policy. However it seems like it will be difficult for it to come in play with the way they lowball RCV and other exclusions like law and ordinance.

I appreciate your reply, I saw “non-recoverable depreciation” and was sweating like how did I not know I had ACV

quote:

---

Instead of taking a video, you probably should have tried to protect your floors! I am so tired of everyone relying on someone to bail them out. You should took care of your home and not rely on the insurance company.

---

This is dumb. He was clearly trying to do what he could, judging by the towels under the door.

You buy an insurance policy specifically to guard against the risk of unforeseen damage to your home/belongings. That’s not being “bailed out” - it’s a product that you pay for.

I don’t know whether OP’s policy will wind up covering his damage or not, but it’s laughable to accuse people of looking for a handout just because they are trying to file a claim with their insurance carrier after a disaster. That’s like accusing someone of being on welfare because they are drawing on a pension in retirement.

quote:

---

The purpose of co insurance clause isn’t bs

---

Perhaps not, but I think you have to rely on two assumptions to make this statement: that the insurance companies always act in good faith and that replacement cost is readily available information. Insurance companies ultimately decide replacement cost, or are the biggest market force. A typical homeowner is not a builder and does not have the tools to come up with that estimate. Even if they hire a pro to do it, the insurance company will perform their own calculation in the event of a loss.

And the purpose is to make sure the insurance company is receiving the correct premium for the amount of risk they are taking on. Having a lower than actual replacement limit does in fact lower their risk from actual damages in the event of a complete replacement.

All that said, you don’t get to read your policy before you buy it, homeowners typically will only see one policy (their own), and I just believe it is a big enough deal to put this fact on the declarations so they at least have a chance to see that their replacement cost limit needs to be a certain number to get the amount of insurance they think they are buying. In reality, most of the time the policy limit is suggested by the agent, and the homeowner just compares that to the market value which is readily available (at least approximately). I’ve seen commercial policies with this on that declarations.