Words from my insurance adjuster: "I reached out to the insurance company to discuss this additional cost. From review of the policy with this property, there is no building by-law coverage in force for it. This additional sewer and water charge appears to be due to a by-law issue, and as a result, insurance company is unable to consider payment if it under the claim. They will only be able to pay the initial approved demo cost for removal of the building."
Now my adjuster has approved a demolition budget, but in order for me to demolish the city is requiring me to cap/disconnect the proper sewer water and waste from their main. It's quite an unexpected cost.. From 2 different companies the quotes are actually higher than the cost of demolishing the building. Regardless, I did some googling and a by-law coverage (which I don't have) covers any changes or new by-laws set in place.
If this by-law is already in place, shouldn't my insurance company cover the cost of the tear-down and the disconnection of sewer, water, and waste from the City's main? Can I rebuttal this decision?
House was built in early 1910.
Now my adjuster has approved a demolition budget, but in order for me to demolish the city is requiring me to cap/disconnect the proper sewer water and waste from their main. It's quite an unexpected cost.. From 2 different companies the quotes are actually higher than the cost of demolishing the building. Regardless, I did some googling and a by-law coverage (which I don't have) covers any changes or new by-laws set in place.
If this by-law is already in place, shouldn't my insurance company cover the cost of the tear-down and the disconnection of sewer, water, and waste from the City's main? Can I rebuttal this decision?
House was built in early 1910.
