Tag Archives: Replacement Cost

Insurance Companies Cannot Deduct The Cost Of Land From Your Replacement Home Purchase in California

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

Potential Changes to California’s Insurance Code Section 2051 Impacts Total loss Valuation on ACV Policies

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

Can My Insurance Company Deduct Labor Costs When I Have A Replacement Cost Policy? What Allstate Does Not Say In Its Ads

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

Can My Recovery be Limited to Actual Cash Value When the Insurer’s Failure to Pay Prevented Compliance with My Policy Condition on Recovering Replacement Cost?

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

Replacement Cost Coverage and the 180-Day Notice Requirement

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

California Passes Law Requiring Insurance Companies Take Specific Measures To Periodically Review The Estimated Replacement Cost Of Structures Insured Under Residential Property Insurance Policies

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 is Not Always a Prerequisite for an Insured to Claim Replacement Cost Benefits

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

Does Entering Into a Land Contract for Replacement Property Satisfy the “Actual And Complete Replacement” and “Amount Actually Spent” Requirements for Replacement Cost Benefits?

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

Allstate’s 180-Day Dwelling Replacement Requirement Trumped by the Illinois Standard Fire Policy

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

California Supreme Court Affirms California Fair Plan Ass’n v. Garnes, and Preserves Homeowners’ Interests

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

In California, Can an Insured Homeowner Recover Full Replacement Cost by Purchasing a Home at Another Location?

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

Does Actual Cash Value Mean Fair Market Value or Replacement Cost minus Depreciation?

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

Insurers Must Provide Complete Replacement Cost Estimates

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

Determining Depreciation–Are Policyholders Getting Ripped Off?

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

Why Focusing Recovery Efforts on RCV Only Can Prove Disastrous for Insureds Who Fail to Make a Demand and Present Evidence of ACV

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

Connecticut Values Actual Cash Value as Replacement Cost Value Minus Depreciation

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

Replacement Cost With Like Kind and Quality and ALE During Construction Awarded: Ambiguous Policy Language is Construed Against the Insurance Company

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
LexBlog