Many insurance policyholders who have lost homes in the devastating California wildfires call our firm and ask, “Can my insurance company really deduct the value of the land under the replacement home I purchased from my claim payment?” This is a great question because this is now an unlawful tactic by the insurance companies that … Continue Reading
Are California homeowners entitled to collect actual cash value (“ACV”) or replacement cost values (“RCV”) for property claims? It depends on what type of policy you have and whether you suffered a total or partial loss of your property. What’s more, in a few weeks, the California Assembly may vote to change existing law. To … Continue Reading
California has statutory and case law that defines replacement cost and actual cash value, and these laws are read into every insurance policy notwithstanding what the policy language says. This blog has several posts on the subject,1 and this post aims to give you one cohesive post to consult for all your questions on calculating … Continue Reading
Can you imagine Allstate Insurance Company running an advertisement explaining that it tries to deduct labor costs as depreciable items when you make a homeowners claim? Allstate runs television ads trying to warn against “cheap” insurance but fails to disclose that it instructs its claims adjusters to cheapen its insurance product when it comes to … Continue Reading
Insurers often try to limit damages once they are found liable for breach of the insurance contract by claiming that the insurance policy limits the insured’s recovery to the actual cash value because the insured did not comply with the policy’s condition on recovering replacement cost.1… Continue Reading
In my experience, one of the most misinterpreted property insurance policy provisions is the 180-day notice requirement to receive replacement cost benefits. Many in the property insurance industry interpret the provision to require actual repair/replacement within 180 days of the loss. Others interpret the provision to simply require notice within 180 days of the loss … Continue Reading
Last month, California passed legislation that requires residential property insurers to take specific measures to review the estimated cost of rebuilding or repairing structures insured under residential property insurance policies. Assembly Bill 1797 added section 10103.4 to California’s Insurance Code. With certain, limited exceptions, under the new statute, residential property insurers must, at least biennially, … Continue Reading
Replacement cost insurance generally allows recovery for the actual value of property at the time of loss, without deduction for deterioration, obsolescence, and similar depreciation of the property’s value. Depending on the circumstances, the difference between the actual cash value and the replacement cost value of a loss can be significant.… Continue Reading
In January, state legislators introduced bills to increase and/or extend insurance coverage to policyholders facing declared disasters.… Continue Reading
Under the “Loss Settlement” provision in the typical homeowners property insurance policy, the insurer is not obligated to pay replacement cost benefits unless and until “actual repair or replacement is complete.” The “Loss Settlement” provision also limits the insurer’s replacement cost payment to the lesser of: the limit of liability that applies to the building, … Continue Reading
Under the powers vested by sections 397 and 401 of the Illinois Insurance Code, the Director of Insurance has promulgated certain regulations which provide for a Standard Fire Policy.1 Under the regulations, all fire insurance policies must “conform to such form of the Standard [Fire] Policy or, if another form is used, shall for the … Continue Reading
The California Department of Insurance recently issued a press release announcing that the California Supreme Court affirmed the homeowner reimbursement protections recently decided in California Fair Plan Association v. Garnes.1 Back in June, my colleague Kevin Pollack wrote about the recent decision and whether actual cash value means fair market value or replacement cost minus … Continue Reading
The short answer is yes. In Conway v. Farmers Home Mutual Insurance Company, the California Court of Appeal followed several out-of-state authorities in considering the issue and ruling in favor for the insured.1 Chip Merlin raised this issue with respect to Texas back in 2009 – finding that the courts there apply the law a … Continue Reading
A recent post, Insurance Agents and Determining Coverage Limits for Buildings, generated a number of very interesting comments about the differences between Replacement Cost Value of a building and the Reconstruction Value of a building. There is a difference between the two values and it is a big issue.… Continue Reading
What is an insured, who has an “actual cash value” property insurance policy, entitled to recover when their property is damaged, but not a total loss? Is the insured entitled to the cost to repair/replace the property minus depreciation? Or is the insured’s recovery limited to the property’s fair market value? What if the property’s … Continue Reading
Recently we received a request from a reader inquiring as to who has the responsibility to determine whether a sustained covered loss to a dwelling can be repaired or must be replaced? We always urge a thorough reading of the policy first, to determine what coverages exist, but not all policies are clear. Here’s a … Continue Reading
A recent class action lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania1 raised an issue that policyholder advocates and public adjusters see all over the country – insurers that try to exclude overhead and profit from property damage claim payments made on an actual cash value basis.… Continue Reading
I recently was involved in a lawsuit in which the insurer paid for some of the costs incurred by the insured in repairing his building following a loss. The insurer’s payment was based on a repair cost estimate prepared by its independent insurance adjuster. The insurance policy provided for payment of a loss on a … Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling yesterday requiring insurers to communicate “complete” replacement cost estimates to insureds.1 The ruling not only found the regulation requiring this action to be well within the Insurance commissioner’s authority, but found the basis for the regulation to be well founded. It is a wonderful victory for policyholders … Continue Reading
Many property insurance company adjusters are required by their companies to determine the amount of depreciation to be taken when arriving at amounts of actual cash value. Many are told to determine this amount by determining the replacement cost and then subtracting depreciation. The question is: How are property insurance adjusters trained to determine depreciation … Continue Reading
My colleague Ed Eshoo recently wrote a blog addressing how Illinois courts follow the Prevention Doctrine (if an insurer prevents or hinders an insured from complying with the condition to repair/replace the property before being entitled to full replacement cost, then the insured’s failure to repair/replace won’t necessarily bar a recovery of full replacement costs … Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court will soon decide an issue of great importance to California property policyholders: Whether insurers should be required to communicate “complete” replacement cost estimates to insureds when selling homeowner policies.… Continue Reading
The Broad Evidence Rule has been used in Connecticut to calculate Actual Cash Value (ACV) on property damage cases since 1959.1 That all changed in 2011 when the Connecticut House of Representatives passed Substitute House Bill No. 6238. This bill nullified the Broad Evidence Rule and instead calculated ACV for homeowners and commercial risk insurance … Continue Reading
Most people understand that insurance policies are drafted by insurance companies. There is little to no negotiation of terms between a potential policyholder and the insurance company, so if language is ambiguous it is construed against the drafter—the insurance company. Below you will find details about a recent case out of the Western District of … Continue Reading
