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.
Sounds like both of you work for the insurance company. Among the most hated things on earth are politicians and insurance companies. It fails me to consider that some one would defend them.
I too like Driller have dealt directly with those cows too. In this very House forum most of you know me well when threads on kitchens and cabinets come up.
Ok so a home floods. The insurance company wants to replace just the base cabinets, not the uppers because the uppers are not damaged by the water. But in the vast majority of cases the base cabinets are old, discontinued or maybe the brand, or brand color or door style is no longer available. So it is therefore impossible to match their old cabinets.
Now try and tell a homeowner that I have to put a different color or style cabinet on the base only because the insurance company will not replace the uppers. And if the cabinet is cherry or an upper end cabinet it dont matter. Insurance only pays for oak which is inexpensive. But I will get asked by the insurance company if I would price it in corrugated cardboard boxes. I refuse. Some one else can take that job.
In the end we are able to get them a whole new kitchen minus the tops. It will always be a lessor quality cabinet. In almost all cases the homeowner couphs up some extra money and we just redo the kitchen their way. It should not be that way.
I can see where we have different experiences. Legally, in Michigan the insurance companies have no say in how I do my job.
Sounds like both of you work for the insurance company. Among the most hated things on earth are politicians and insurance companies. It fails me to consider that some one would defend them.
I too like Driller have dealt directly with those cows too. In this very House forum most of you know me well when threads on kitchens and cabinets come up.
Ok so a home floods. The insurance company wants to replace just the base cabinets, not the uppers because the uppers are not damaged by the water. But in the vast majority of cases the base cabinets are old, discontinued or maybe the brand, or brand color or door style is no longer available. So it is therefore impossible to match their old cabinets.
Now try and tell a homeowner that I have to put a different color or style cabinet on the base only because the insurance company will not replace the uppers. And if the cabinet is cherry or an upper end cabinet it dont matter. Insurance only pays for oak which is inexpensive. But I will get asked by the insurance company if I would price it in corrugated cardboard boxes. I refuse. Some one else can take that job.
In the end we are able to get them a whole new kitchen minus the tops. It will always be a lessor quality cabinet. In almost all cases the homeowner couphs up some extra money and we just redo the kitchen their way. It should not be that way.
If there is no damage to the uppers then why should the insurance company pay for those? The idea behind the insurance is to put the homeowner back to where they were before the loss not to make money off a claim. The insurance company should replace like kind if the same is not available-IF the homeowner has replacement cost coverage on their policy, which many people DON'T. If the homeowners want to replace the uppers then they should do that at their expense, not the expense of the insurance company.
It is the same as doing a roof, the insurance company will replace with like kind shingles but if you want to upgrade to a fancier shingle, you have to foot the bill.
That is when the homeowner needs to consuolt a attorney if tehy have replacement; after they ask for a speaial adjuster on th9ose cabinet. I have seen this many timnes when the qriginaol adjuster did not writeupo the claim right . I had to have this myslef after getting some estiamtes. In the end it came out well;but again I had repalcemant not depreciated. I also have to say this about the roofing question. After Rita I had to have the roof repaled. I decided to have the roof done with 30 year architecture shingles and told the adjuster this. He said no just send in the estimate on the 30 year adding you never know. I got boith estimates in case they questioned the difference. Farmers paid with no questions asked after I sent in the bill. I thought I got lucky but after Ike this was pretty common as my neighbor said that is what Farmers recommend she do and said they would pay the difference.
If there is no damage to the uppers then why should the insurance company pay for those? The idea behind the insurance is to put the homeowner back to where they were before the loss not to make money off a claim. The insurance company should replace like kind if the same is not available-IF the homeowner has replacement cost coverage on their policy, which many people DON'T. If the homeowners want to replace the uppers then they should do that at their expense, not the expense of the insurance company.
It is the same as doing a roof, the insurance company will replace with like kind shingles but if you want to upgrade to a fancier shingle, you have to foot the bill.
The roof is a poor example because there are maybe 3 types of shingles and 6 colors and that has not changed for 30 years. In cabinetry all cabinet companies change door styles, colors, and even box construction every couple of years.
So if you had a flood and (lets use a solid color for example sake) and you had green cabinets, and green was no longer available, would you accept red cabinets for the bottoms? Keep in mind few people have bank accounts these days to dig in to add to a whole new kitchen.
I have had people refuse to do the kitchen and just pocket the insurance check rather then mix match the cabinets. In this case we could repair the water damage with a band-aid. But I won tell the insurance company that.
The roof is a poor example because there are maybe 3 types of shingles and 6 colors and that has not changed for 30 years. In cabinetry all cabinet companies change door styles, colors, and even box construction every couple of years.
So if you had a flood and (lets use a solid color for example sake) and you had green cabinets, and green was no longer available, would you accept red cabinets for the bottoms? Keep in mind few people have bank accounts these days to dig in to add to a whole new kitchen.
I have had people refuse to do the kitchen and just pocket the insurance check rather then mix match the cabinets. In this case we could repair the water damage with a band-aid. But I won tell the insurance company that.
There is no where that says you HAVE to repair damage with the insurance check. Many people just pocket the money and don't have the work fixed. It also won't be covered again in another loss so that is the trade-off.
No, I wouldn't accept red cabinets to go with green so I would make a choice. Again, why should the insurance company have to pay for undamaged goods? It makes no sense. Some companies will pay to replace all if more then a certain percentage of the cabinets are damaged but not many.
I would also say the the flood example is a bad one since coverage is so limited anyway. Insurance companies are not in the charity business, they are in the business to make money and if they paid out every claim like you seem to think they should, they would either be bankrupt or no one could afford the premiums. Again, insurance is to put you back to where you were when you started and if your lower cabinets were damaged, your lower cabinets are what get replaced. If you have replacement cost insurance they might have to get doors that are custom made to match the uppers, but a good company will do that.
There is no where that says you HAVE to repair damage with the insurance check. Many people just pocket the money and don't have the work fixed. It also won't be covered again in another loss so that is the trade-off.
No, I wouldn't accept red cabinets to go with green so I would make a choice. Again, why should the insurance company have to pay for undamaged goods? It makes no sense. Some companies will pay to replace all if more then a certain percentage of the cabinets are damaged but not many.
I would also say the the flood example is a bad one since coverage is so limited anyway. Insurance companies are not in the charity business, they are in the business to make money and if they paid out every claim like you seem to think they should, they would either be bankrupt or no one could afford the premiums. Again, insurance is to put you back to where you were when you started and if your lower cabinets were damaged, your lower cabinets are what get replaced. If you have replacement cost insurance they might have to get doors that are custom made to match the uppers, but a good company will do that.
What insurance company do you work for? There has never been a documented case in USA history where some one defended insurance companies unless they worked there. Even few of them defend them.
Anyway you said you would not accept different color cabinets so you would make a decision. Is that decision to go into your bank account to come up with enough to redo your whole kitchen? Well the vast majority of Americans today have no savings account. They live paycheck to paycheck, and most are living off their VISA racking up balances. If they suffer a loss do to a flood they can not rebuild if insurance dont live up to the contract. Even if they do live up to the contract but escape paying portions because of purposly inserted loopholes.
You are dead on right that no law or rule states you have to spend your insurance check to repair or rebuild. And who are we to tell anyone to? My problem is more with insurance companies always trying to wiggle out of paying.
You are also right that insurance companies are in business to make money. But at whos expense? Back east where I grew up and probably any big city for that matter, we always had a saying. Drive up the interstate highway that is lined with all those big buildings and places of business. Who has the most beautiful and most expensive buildings? Insurance companies hands down. Banks come in a close second.
I need to get homeowners & auto insurance in Southern California. Anyone want to weigh in on their favorites? Or any nightmare stories of what companies to avoid? For instance: I noticed Allstate is cheaper, but lots of complaints on the Internet. What do YOU think?
One thing to consider is if you have a dog or are thinking of owning one. Most insurance companies have a list of breeds that they won't allow. I've had State Farm for years, because they don't care what breed your dog is, just if it has a bite history.
What insurance company do you work for? There has never been a documented case in USA history where some one defended insurance companies unless they worked there. Even few of them defend them.
Anyway you said you would not accept different color cabinets so you would make a decision. Is that decision to go into your bank account to come up with enough to redo your whole kitchen? Well the vast majority of Americans today have no savings account. They live paycheck to paycheck, and most are living off their VISA racking up balances. If they suffer a loss do to a flood they can not rebuild if insurance dont live up to the contract. Even if they do live up to the contract but escape paying portions because of purposly inserted loopholes.
You are dead on right that no law or rule states you have to spend your insurance check to repair or rebuild. And who are we to tell anyone to? My problem is more with insurance companies always trying to wiggle out of paying.
You are also right that insurance companies are in business to make money. But at whos expense? Back east where I grew up and probably any big city for that matter, we always had a saying. Drive up the interstate highway that is lined with all those big buildings and places of business. Who has the most beautiful and most expensive buildings? Insurance companies hands down. Banks come in a close second.
I don't work for a homeowner's insurance company but people that try to get more out of their claims then they are owed cause MY rates to go up and that is why I defend insurance companies. It isn't the fault of the insurance company that people can't afford to fix things that need to be fixed. Again, you are completely missing the point. WHY should an insurance company be expected to fix something that isn't damaged or broken? You do realize how regulated the insurance industry is, right. EVERYTHING the put in their contracts has to be approved by the government. EVERY rate they charge has to be approved, every INCREASE OR DECREASE has to be approved. Some companies are better at paying claims then other, that is a fact, but none of them will pay for something that isn't covered and why should they?
Bingo. You pay and pay and pay your premiums, and then when you have a claim they'll fight tooth and nail to not pay you.
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.
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.
