Log Home Fire-Builders Risk Insurance

AJ:

HBIS-35 is WINDSTORM OR HAIL EXCLUSION
HBIS-67 is DEDUCTIBLE AMENDATORY ENDORSEMENT
ILO119 is MISSISSIPPI CHANGES COMMERCIAL INLAND MARINE CONDITIONS AND LEGAL ACTION AGAINST US.


Regards.
 
That's a "Reservation of Rights" letter. It's a standard type of letter that claim reps send out when there is a potential coverage "issue." It isn't a denial of the claim, and it doesn't explain what the issue is, but it is designed to place the insured on notice that there is an "issue" and that the company is reserving the right to take whatever action is necessary regarding the issue.

Yes, it's alarming. I've written many hundreds of them. But it's not a "decision."

There is nothing in that letter or in the policy that says anything about paying you only 30% of your loss.

Where did that come from?

If your response will start with "the adjuster said" then please quote the adjuster word for word and not paraphrase.
 
AJ, in these turbulent times, I guess I'm just attributing the negative energies as continuing. I'm translating it as "nothing above 30% will be paid…"

Thank you.
 
AJ, without any doubt whatsoever, when I purchased the policy in May '16 I was at least 80-85% complete. I have receipts and invoices that identify such as well as pictures. Too, I am definite that everyone who worked on the project would gladly testify as to where the home construction was in May. Really, the wording is scary and I cannot read anything other than "the policy will not pay more than 30%". ..
 
patguilbeaux said:
ILO119 is MISSISSIPPI CHANGES COMMERCIAL INLAND MARINE CONDITIONS AND LEGAL ACTION AGAINST US.
Click to expand...

Please show me that one.

patguilbeaux said:
I cannot read anything other than "the policy will not pay more than 30%". ..
Click to expand...

I don't see that to be the case and I can't speculate on anything without anything specific.

If you want to respond to the Reservation of Rights letter and try to get something specific, let me know and I'll suggest the wording of your response. Otherwise, we are just going to have to see what happens. As often happened with me, those letters went out and the claim was quite often settled in the insured's favor.
 
Ok. Really, thanks! I don't want to be to quick to jump the gun so I think I'll sit back and wait it out a bit. The valuation is ongoing as is the investigation, which I imagine will be wrapping up any day now.

Thanks again
 
AJ, I had family come in this weekend and that helped a lot mentally. Now that some of this fog that typically accompanies tragedy a of such nature has lifted, I feel a little more clarity.

I feel like a clutz in thinking the wording meant they would only pay 30%. Now I realize that they can not pay anything based on the wording of the exclusion. "Existing structures..."

Now the new question is this:

The log home was the only structure on the property. It is the reason I purchased the policy. So, if the clause states that existing property over 30% may not be covered, and the log home is the only existing property, WHY did I buy the insurance?????? Really makes no sense but scary as can be!
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top