Covered or Not?

[VaDwayne]

I am in a forum, I DONT CARE ABOUT SPELLING you ***, I am sick of you trolling me

Just simply block him. This guy has offered very little, if any, advice on this forum to help others since I've been a member. He is simply here to be a moron and the forum moderators just let it continue. They pound Rick, Al, and others but this dufus is allowed to do his thing. Just simply block him.

Might have something to do with his Ray's sucking hind tit this year too.

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

Might have something to do with his Ray's sucking hind tit this year too.

Your prognostication may be a tad premature. This morning finds the Rays 2 games out of the Wild Card, with 3 games left next week with the Orioles. We shall see...

 

[Bertolinoins]

What event was sudden and accidental? The storm caused the opening or a lack of maintenance caused the opening?

 

[Sales71]

The coverage will depend on the claim adjuster investigation. So file a claim and let the insurance company do there work.

You never tell a client if its covered for sure since you are not the one who will make the decision.

Good luck.

 

[cottonland]

The coverage will depend on the claim adjuster investigation. So file a claim and let the insurance company do there work.

You never tell a client if its covered for sure since you are not the one who will make the decision.

Good luck.

I understand the process and the pitfalls of an agent stating that any type of loss is covered. I also have seen instances in which an adjuster handles a claim incorrectly based on the policy language and that is the governing factor in the claims handling process.

The claim was filed and the adjuster initially tried to deny the claim based on an exclusion found under "Basic" cause of loss while the dwelling is written on "Special", which is not how the policy was written.

So after discussing the claim with the superviser, I gave them the opportunity to cite the exclusion they were denying the claim under. After reading the approipriate cause of loss form and realizing that in the abscence of an exclusion a loss is covered, they paid the claim.

 

[xrac]

I am in a forum, I DONT CARE ABOUT SPELLING you ***, I am sick of you trolling me

RBA, the best thing to do is just ignore.

 

[pancham]

It seems that you are suggesting that the boot is the PROXIMATE cause of the water damage...hence they would want to say that there is no coverage? Not sure. Lets say my 10 year old furnace broke down and leaked enough water to cause damage. I would file a claim for such damage. Lack of maintenance of my furnace is a fact and I would be responsible to look after that. If I dont and should another damage occur,then I would have to contend with the Insurer refusing my claim a second time. I believe that his claim seems legitimate...unless they could prove that he was aware of any deterioration in the boot and as such did not take any action to correct that.

 

[cottonland]

In your scenario, i would think that the resulting water damage would be covered but not the furnace itself assuming the coverage form is the same.

The adjuster was trying to say that since there was no visible signs of damage to the roof then the claim would be denied.

That is flat out wrong.

 

[b61mack]

Get a roofer, to hopefully side with you. If the damage is old, you may have a problem, but if it is not that old, you may have a chance.