Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See my previous post for an explanation why the homeowner will probably have to pay some to repair his house.
The portion you will have to pay if you want it fixed is the depreciated value of the siding, etc. See my previous post.
Yes way, there is, by law, many reasons why he should have to pay and it starts with him not having his own policies.
For a liability, when a company is assuming 100% fault, the injured party does not have a deductible.
Now, he could try, in civil court, to get the rest of the damages not covered by her insurance paid for out of her pocket. That is a possibility if he chooses to pursue that avenue and if she has any money to pay.
lol you must be with an insurance company homeowners insurance is not required by law as far as i know.
now i know in an automobile accident if you dont have insurance it is automatically your fault because you were not supposed to be on the road anyway.
already spent $200 to have the water spigot caped off just so i can have water cant repair till i get permits per the city inspector
and if i did have homeowners insurance they wouldnt pay a dime but im sure they would make the other insurance company fix it as good as new with no cost to homeowner and no money out of there pocket
This article is written to the person whose vehicle damaged property, but it says an auto insurance company will often pay the full amount of the damage to keep their client from being sued. In your case, since it's not an astronomical sum like the car winding up in your bedroom, I would think a little persuasion might work.
Here is how insurance works, you take out a policy, pay your premiums for coverage. As your house (or car) gets older, the stuff on your house is worth less-roof, siding, etc. Say your siding was put on 20 years ago for $10,000, the value of that siding has gone down each year and now, 20 years later, that siding is worth $1000. Since that siding is now worth $1000, the insurance company pays you $1000 because the point of insurance is to put you back where you were before the incident happened. So, in this case, your check for $1000 puts you back, financially, where you started. Or maybe it's easier to understand with a car, you buy a new car for $20,000 and drive it for 10 years. That car is now worth $3000. Someone totals your car while it is parked in front of your house, you will get a check for $3000, not $20,000.
For homeowners insurance, you have the option of buying a replacement cost rider which means that instead of the $1000 in the example above, you get $5000 because that is how much it costs to replace the damaged siding, for example. The reverse works as well though too. Say 5 years ago you bought a new flat screen TV for $1000, but that same tv now is sold for $400. Say your TV was damaged in a fire, you get a check for $400, not the $1000 you paid for the tv. This only happens IF you have the replacement cost rider on your policy. If you don't have that rider, you get the depreciated cost of the TV, which probably is $100 at this point.
Now, in your case, if you had homeowner's insurance, the liable company would have had to pay you to the standards of YOUR policy so, because you don't have insurance, they only have to pay you the depreciated cost of your damage, which is all they have to do, by law. If you had insurance with a replacement cost rider, they would have had to pay to replace the siding.
No the atipo insurance has to make you whole without any depreciation.There would be no homeowers claim with this damage at all.This is no difference than any suit for danages i wehich the drivers insruance pays the cost of repairs> if it went to xcourt they would ahve to prove some fault on the honeowner which they obvious can't ;s auto insruance is totally rersponsible. Whetehr the homeower ahs repalcemnt ot not makes no difference inthsi case as they would not be involved unless it wen to court where they would represent the homeowners as they have secondary coverage.
No the atipo insurance has to make you whole without any depreciation.There would be no homeowers claim with this damage at all.This is no difference than any suit for danages i wehich the drivers insruance pays the cost of repairs> if it went to xcourt they would ahve to prove some fault on the honeowner which they obvious can't ;s auto insruance is totally rersponsible. Whetehr the homeower ahs repalcemnt ot not makes no difference inthsi case as they would not be involved unless it wen to court where they would represent the homeowners as they have secondary coverage.
Sorry, but depreciation does come into play, especially with auto insurance...
Don't confuse fault with actual payouts. Sure, a company can assume 100% fault, but that doesn't mean they actually pay out 100% of the cost to repair because of depreciation. Take an example of a car, say there is $10,000 worth of damage because parts and labor would add up to that much, but, the car is only worth $5000 because of mileage and previous condition. The insurance company pays out the $5000--which makes you whole, not the $10,000 in repairs--which gives you a gain on your prior position. Same with this house. If the siding is only worth $1000, that is all he is going to get because that is what it was worth to start. To give him $10,000 would put him in a better financial position.
Dennis-I never said homeowner's insurance was required by law.
Wouldn't paying $5000 on a car worth $5000 mean totalling the car out? You aren't totalling out the siding and sheetrock, he's just repairing a small part of it.
Regardless of the letter of the contract, they have wiggle room. He should point out the age of siding etc. doesn't affect the cost of repairs, and unlike damaging say, one door (where giving him enough $ for a new door would leave him better off than before the accident started) he's just trying to get back to the same place he was before the accident. (This depreciation makes no sense when you can't go out and buy 15 year old siding, the way you can buy a 2007 model car to replace your 2007 model car.) No matter what the contract says he should have a completely paid-for repair, whether it comes from the company or a lawsuit. A judge would rule against a drunk driver who hit a car and a house. I think he's got a shot at getting it from Farmer's.
See my previous post for an explanation why the homeowner will probably have to pay some to repair his house.
The portion you will have to pay if you want it fixed is the depreciated value of the siding, etc. See my previous post.
Yes way, there is, by law, many reasons why he should have to pay and it starts with him not having his own policies.
For a liability, when a company is assuming 100% fault, the injured party does not have a deductible.
Now, he could try, in civil court, to get the rest of the damages not covered by her insurance paid for out of her pocket. That is a possibility if he chooses to pursue that avenue and if she has any money to pay.
The insurance coverage is between the insurance company and the insured and deductibles apply depending on the insurance contract between the two parties.
The insured person is responsible for the repair. All of it. She and her insurance company decide how much each of them will pay. The deductible belongs to the person who owns the insurance policy, not the person who is injured by the insured.
If you hit my car with your car, you are responsible for making it look like new. You will pay for the entire cost of the repair. Whether I have insurance or not does not come into play. If you total my car, you pay an amount that would enable me to buy a car of similar age and condition.
In this case, Ms. X damaged the OP's house. She is personally 100% liable for the repair. The OP did nothing to cause her to drive her vehicle into his home. He has the right to expect that Ms. X will pay for 100% of the repair. How much Ms. X pays out of her pocket and how much her insurance company pays is between them and depends on what her contract says she owes in terms of a deductible.
The OP has the right to expect that his home will be restored to its condition prior to its being hit by the car. That means using materials of the same quality and having the repair done in a workman like manner. For the interior, that would mean not just painting the patched area of sheet rock but the entire wall, and, if necessary to achieve a color match, the entire room.
Dennis, you do not have to pay for any of the repair. If she tore up your yard or plowed through any shrubbery, she pays for fixing that, too.
I think people are getting confused on what type of insurance is applicable here and how it works. Lets break it down:
Car hit house - that means that the AUTO insurance (Farmers) is the insurance in play here. This claim falls under the property damage catagory of the Auto liability coverage. Whether or not the homeowner has homeowners insurance has no bearing on this claim at this time. There is no subrogation as there is no question that the car driver is 100% responsible for the damage.
Insurance adjuster. Everyone knows that this person represents the insurance company, right? That being said, they will do everything in their power to LIMIT THE AMOUNT THAT IS PAID OUT. Everything that they say MUST be questioned and contested. DO NOT agree or sign ANYTHING yet. The adjuster is not your friend and does not have your best interests in mind. An informed consumer is the insurance company's worst enemy.
Depreciated value claim - quite frankly, the adjuster is blowing smoke! The insurance company is responsible for 100% of this REPAIR. I would have laughed in his face if he had started in on the "depreciated value" routine. There is a big difference between a repair and a replacement in "insurance-speak".
What I suggest you do:
Get a contractor in ASAP and get a true cost for the repair. Submit this bill to Farmer's. My guess is that you will have no problem getting it paid if its a reasonable and true estimate for repair from a reputable company. Let us know how it goes. If they start giving you problems, ask them nicely "do I need to get an attorney involved here?"
Wouldn't paying $5000 on a car worth $5000 mean totalling the car out? You aren't totalling out the siding and sheetrock, he's just repairing a small part of it.
Regardless of the letter of the contract, they have wiggle room. He should point out the age of siding etc. doesn't affect the cost of repairs, and unlike damaging say, one door (where giving him enough $ for a new door would leave him better off than before the accident started) he's just trying to get back to the same place he was before the accident. (This depreciation makes no sense when you can't go out and buy 15 year old siding, the way you can buy a 2007 model car to replace your 2007 model car.) No matter what the contract says he should have a completely paid-for repair, whether it comes from the company or a lawsuit. A judge would rule against a drunk driver who hit a car and a house. I think he's got a shot at getting it from Farmer's.
That is exactly what they are doing with the siding-"totaling it out". Again, you need to understand the principal behind depreciation. Having a new door to replace a 20 year old door is NOT putting him back where he was before. Putting a 20 year old door on in place of a damaged 20 year old door would put him back where he was before, however, instead of putting on a 20 year old door, they depreciate the replaced part and give you the cash that would be the same as if you went to a junk yard and bought a 20 year old door.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The insurance coverage is between the insurance company and the insured and deductibles apply depending on the insurance contract between the two parties.
The insured person is responsible for the repair. All of it. She and her insurance company decide how much each of them will pay. The deductible belongs to the person who owns the insurance policy, not the person who is injured by the insured.
If you hit my car with your car, you are responsible for making it look like new. You will pay for the entire cost of the repair. Whether I have insurance or not does not come into play. If you total my car, you pay an amount that would enable me to buy a car of similar age and condition.
In this case, Ms. X damaged the OP's house. She is personally 100% liable for the repair. The OP did nothing to cause her to drive her vehicle into his home. He has the right to expect that Ms. X will pay for 100% of the repair. How much Ms. X pays out of her pocket and how much her insurance company pays is between them and depends on what her contract says she owes in terms of a deductible.
The OP has the right to expect that his home will be restored to its condition prior to its being hit by the car. That means using materials of the same quality and having the repair done in a workman like manner. For the interior, that would mean not just painting the patched area of sheet rock but the entire wall, and, if necessary to achieve a color match, the entire room.
Dennis, you do not have to pay for any of the repair. If she tore up your yard or plowed through any shrubbery, she pays for fixing that, too.
If I hit your car I do NOT have to make your car look like new, I have to make it look like it was before I hit your car. If your car is 20 years old, you are not going to get the funds to pay to make your car look brand new.
Yes, Mrs. X is 100% liable for the damage to that house, her insurance company, however is NOT. They are liable to pay out the depreciated cost of the damage. The OP is certainly free to sue Mrs. X for the balance. Yes, the materials have to be the same quality and age that were on the house to start, however, like my example above, instead of trying to find 20 year old siding, they depreciated the amount paid out to make up for the lost value of that siding. It also does NOT mean that they have to repaint the entire wall or room or even match the paint that was there. This is where REPLACEMENT coverage comes in. If you don't have that, they ONLY have to fix the damage, period. If you have replacement coverage, they then need to replace to match.
Yes, the OP has the right to have his house returned to the condition it was before, so he can either accept the depreciated amount OR he can have the insurance company find 20 year old siding to put on his house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Va-Cat
I think people are getting confused on what type of insurance is applicable here and how it works. Lets break it down:
Car hit house - that means that the AUTO insurance (Farmers) is the insurance in play here. This claim falls under the property damage catagory of the Auto liability coverage. Whether or not the homeowner has homeowners insurance has no bearing on this claim at this time. There is no subrogation as there is no question that the car driver is 100% responsible for the damage.
Insurance adjuster. Everyone knows that this person represents the insurance company, right? That being said, they will do everything in their power to LIMIT THE AMOUNT THAT IS PAID OUT. Everything that they say MUST be questioned and contested. DO NOT agree or sign ANYTHING yet. The adjuster is not your friend and does not have your best interests in mind. An informed consumer is the insurance company's worst enemy.
Depreciated value claim - quite frankly, the adjuster is blowing smoke! The insurance company is responsible for 100% of this REPAIR. I would have laughed in his face if he had started in on the "depreciated value" routine. There is a big difference between a repair and a replacement in "insurance-speak".
What I suggest you do:
Get a contractor in ASAP and get a true cost for the repair. Submit this bill to Farmer's. My guess is that you will have no problem getting it paid if its a reasonable and true estimate for repair from a reputable company. Let us know how it goes. If they start giving you problems, ask them nicely "do I need to get an attorney involved here?"
The OP not having homeowner's insurance is VERY relevant. If he had homeowners insurance the auto policy on Mrs. X's car would have to pay to the standards of HIS policy (most likely replacement cost coverage). Since there is no other policy, they only have to pay to the limits of the LAW, which means depreciated value of what they are replacing. Feel free to look up the ISO standard policy to see what minimum requirements there are for home and auto insurance and how those claims need to be paid out. This is a standard policy, nationwide, developed by the committee of the insurance commissioners from each state. Each insurance company can add enhancements to that standard policy, but may not make the policy less potent.
As for getting quotes, the insurance company can require 3 estimates. They will look at those estimates, depreciate out the cost and send a check. Feel free to get an attorney involved but it will cost more than many, many years of homeowner's insurance premiums to do so. Had the OP had homeowner's insurance, he could have filed a claim with them, gotten the repairs done, paid his deductible, waited for his insurance company to duke it out with Farmers and gotten a check back for his paid deductible in the end.
OP, the bottom line is, insurance companies can, and do, pay out more than what they are minimally required to by law. A lawyer does not always have to be involved, but you can't be a pushover. Do as Va-cat advised. You may have to go to court, but you may not. Let us know how it works out. Good luck!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.