If this is a condo then it should be the condo association's insurance that is covering the exterior repairs. The condo's insurance is for the whole building not just a single unit and should therefore cover the entire run. If this is a duplex/townhome then the homeowners insurance would be covering the damage and then yes they would only owe to the the end of the unit so therefore either cap or seam together the run.
Well to me it's 2 properties. So the insurance is only on the one property that is covered. what I would do is have the other property owner reach out to there insurance to get there part covered. One piece gutters are not cheap by the way they are very good.
The policy pays for damage to the property insured by address. It’s a weird one but the property line dividing the condos is clear and they will never pay for someone else’s property that they don’t insure even if it connects like this. This is why condo associations should have master policies to prevent issues just like this one. But then again the deductible would be too high. 🤷♂️
They have to bring the gutter of the house back to the the original condition It was in prior to the storm so with that stipulation capping the gutter would not be its original state therefore, they have to honor full replacement of the entire gutter line.
This is an insurance question related to coverage plain and simple. No contractor can know what that specific carrier says in their policy. You can't collect for someone else's property in this context. The customer never paid any premium for the neighbor's gutter. As reasonable as replacing the whole run seems, the adjuster was running up against policy language (which is the promise of coverage exchanged for the premium paid). You can't use your policy to pay for other people's property. Giving in on a seemingly mundane situation like this can become a multi-million dollar slippery slope for any carrier in no time. Contrary to popular belief, most carriers don't have millions extra just sitting around, especially for issues for which no premium was collected. Further, there was no damage on the neighbor's side, so it's really a matching issue, which most policies in most states don't cover, rather than an issue of repairing direct physical damage as the policy intended. So at that point you're just asking the carrier to replace the extra LF out of the goodness of their hearts. Alternatively, its just as reasonable to ask the contractor to just go ahead and replace the extra LF out of the goodness of HIS heart. 😂
I would think most adjusters would just add it if a homeowner was to call about their property not being returned to pre loss condition over such a small additional cost. If the adjuster stands firm then they probably have something funky with the policy since it’s a shared house. In most cases it’s pretty cut and dry, property returned to pre loss conditions. If all else fails just give them the additional cost of material/labor and tell them that’s the best I could do lol
They should pay for the entire run, that is the only correct way to "restore to pre-storm conditions" that is the policy wording that neds to be abided to for them to act in good faith. If not they are opening themselves up to a lawsuit. Obviously a 200$ run isn't worth that but regardless of the cost its the precedent.
Insurance is not a home warranty. Its purpose is to put what would be an otherwise catastrophic loss whole again. I see very little damage here let alone anything catastrophic. And y’all wonder why insurance rates are going up all over the country.
They should only pay to replace the small section that is smashed. Sure there's going to be seams now. The new seams should be warrantied by the contractor. This is why insurance costs are so high!
The key phrase in the insurance world is pre-loss condition which is in the policy and what the insurance company owes for. Despite the fact it is covering more than one unit cutting it would not be pre-loss condition.
Absolutely not... You can't splice that gutter system. That is SEAMLESS gutter. The product itself should give the insurance agency all they need to know.
If this is a condo then it should be the condo association's insurance that is covering the exterior repairs. The condo's insurance is for the whole building not just a single unit and should therefore cover the entire run. If this is a duplex/townhome then the homeowners insurance would be covering the damage and then yes they would only owe to the the end of the unit so therefore either cap or seam together the run.
Well to me it's 2 properties. So the insurance is only on the one property that is covered. what I would do is have the other property owner reach out to there insurance to get there part covered. One piece gutters are not cheap by the way they are very good.
Storm chaser! No one can replace or repair someone else’s property, that’s nuts, and if it’s a true condo, talk to the assn.
The policy pays for damage to the property insured by address. It’s a weird one but the property line dividing the condos is clear and they will never pay for someone else’s property that they don’t insure even if it connects like this. This is why condo associations should have master policies to prevent issues just like this one. But then again the deductible would be too high. 🤷♂️
Small amount of damage as this I would pay out of my pocket. Insurance company will get their money back plus more by raising your rates.
They have to bring the gutter of the house back to the the original condition It was in prior to the storm
so with that stipulation capping the gutter would not be its original state therefore, they have to honor full replacement of the entire gutter line.
This is an insurance question related to coverage plain and simple. No contractor can know what that specific carrier says in their policy. You can't collect for someone else's property in this context. The customer never paid any premium for the neighbor's gutter. As reasonable as replacing the whole run seems, the adjuster was running up against policy language (which is the promise of coverage exchanged for the premium paid). You can't use your policy to pay for other people's property. Giving in on a seemingly mundane situation like this can become a multi-million dollar slippery slope for any carrier in no time. Contrary to popular belief, most carriers don't have millions extra just sitting around, especially for issues for which no premium was collected. Further, there was no damage on the neighbor's side, so it's really a matching issue, which most policies in most states don't cover, rather than an issue of repairing direct physical damage as the policy intended.
So at that point you're just asking the carrier to replace the extra LF out of the goodness of their hearts. Alternatively, its just as reasonable to ask the contractor to just go ahead and replace the extra LF out of the goodness of HIS heart. 😂
I would think most adjusters would just add it if a homeowner was to call about their property not being returned to pre loss condition over such a small additional cost.
If the adjuster stands firm then they probably have something funky with the policy since it’s a shared house. In most cases it’s pretty cut and dry, property returned to pre loss conditions. If all else fails just give them the additional cost of material/labor and tell them that’s the best I could do lol
They should pay for the entire run, that is the only correct way to "restore to pre-storm conditions" that is the policy wording that neds to be abided to for them to act in good faith. If not they are opening themselves up to a lawsuit. Obviously a 200$ run isn't worth that but regardless of the cost its the precedent.
Idk insurance is a tutchy subject. All I know is claims like this raises rates.
Insurance is not a home warranty. Its purpose is to put what would be an otherwise catastrophic loss whole again. I see very little damage here let alone anything catastrophic. And y’all wonder why insurance rates are going up all over the country.
Cover to the center down spout. Two different houses. End of discussion
They should only pay to replace the small section that is smashed. Sure there's going to be seams now. The new seams should be warrantied by the contractor. This is why insurance costs are so high!
The key phrase in the insurance world is pre-loss condition which is in the policy and what the insurance company owes for. Despite the fact it is covering more than one unit cutting it would not be pre-loss condition.
Does it even meet the deductible?
Absolutely not... You can't splice that gutter system. That is SEAMLESS gutter. The product itself should give the insurance agency all they need to know.
Yes, it can be spliced, and it is perfectly normal. I think in this case the insurance company is correct.