The Value Of Valuation Clauses--Gold Exists In The Small Print Of Your Property Insurance Policy
Kelly Kubiak burst into my office jubilant in her recent victory over Great American Insurance Company. She received an Order granting her Motion for Summary Judgment in a case where the central dispute involved the interpretation of the valuation clause of an insurance policy. We so often talk about the problems of causation that we fail to spend enough time talking about how many benefits insurance policies are supposed to provide. It has been our experience that many policyholders think they have obtained a fantastic settlement from their insurance company until we explain how much money was left on the table through lack of knowledge and experience.
The insurance company adjuster is ethically required to help the policyholder maximize benefits. A properly trained and motivated adjuster teaches the policyholder how the policy can be used to soften the financial blow caused by insured peril. One can imagine how much money is innocently not claimed or recovered when an adjuster does not understand the policy.
In Kelly’s case, the small business she represented had an adjuster fight with the owner over “new” merchandise versus “used” merchandise. I wonder how many other insureds have been cheated as a result of Great American's obviously wrong interpretation of the valuation clause. Many policyholders do not realize the issue or simply fail to fight the issue by retaining an attorney. Unfortunately, this scenario is repeated far too often as many insurance company adjusters do not help the policyholder find ways to encourage payment of full policy benefits.
Have you ever heard of an insurance adjuster saying, “I think the policy can help you and pay you more if you would just….?”
Congratulations to Kelly. One can only wonder how something so obvious ever became a case at all; but, I bet "a case of the obvious" can be among the most difficult of all.
Nowdoucit,
Exactly my thoughts when Kelly first discussed this case in a firm "attorneys meeting." However, interpretations can vary.
I was first left wondering that this could not have been the first time the insurer made this interpretation and that maybe we were simply wrong---although I could never figure out how.
Sometimes, adjusters are wrong and simply hope their attorneys argue out of the promise. This may be one of those cases.
Often, policyholders simply give up. They never should without first seeking an opinion from legal counsel. Most attorneys will provide a free initial review of the case.
Chip
In Kelly's case-of-the-misplaced-modifier, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one that thought "surely not". Thanks.
I know it will be small comfort; but, I do hope every policyholder that's been told, "it's your responsibility to read your policy" hears about this one.
You are absolutely correct, however, about the bottom line. Anyone with a question should seek an opinion from legal counsel, preferably counsel with experience in insurance contract disputes.
Thank you chip for all the years of free education to all of us. Special Congratulations to Kelly.
“ Ignorance opposed the light of true knowledge, Knowledge is Power, and Power is the Toll you need to win the non declare war of insurance "
Wilbert Gomez
Construction Restoration Estimator