Introduction to Property Claims
Here is how we help you settle property claims.
We give you free online programs that automate the settlement of property loss claims. One of our easy-to-use tools, Adjuster's Desktop, calculates depreciation, salvage value, actual cash value, or replacement cost of personal property and produces a fully itemized report. Another calculator, Loss Estimator, figures building repair costs. Our roof measuring programs show you how to measure various types of roofs and does all of the area calculations for you!
To easily measure flat areas such as walls and floors, just use our handy Flat Area Calculator.
We provide Internet links to online stores that can replace damaged property. The policyholder or adjuster has immediate access to replacement products and prices.
We also offer guidelines for determining coverage. Is the loss due to an insured peril or cause? Do any exclusions apply? Are the policy conditions met? Select the Coverage tab for these.
To help with natural disaster response, we offer commonly useful information such as weather,
breaking news, and emergency services. Look under the Catastrophe tab for these resources
The process of adjusting a property loss begins with verifying coverage. The first activity is meeting with the insured and authorizing any need protection from further damage. The next step is inspect the property and determine the cause of the loss. If a person caused or contributed to the loss, determine subrogation potential. Next, values of the property as well as the amount of damage must be determined. The cost to restore or replace is the basis for valuation. Incidental losses, such as loss of use or business interruption, are also calculated. The liability of the insurer may be less than the losses depending on the terms of the policy. A proof of loss setting for the insurer's liability is presented to the insured. Finally, a settlement is negotiated.
|
| Click A Case |
|---|
First party bad faith rights of recovery is broadened.
Jones v. Secura Insurance Co.
|
Wisconsin Supreme Court
February 2, 2002 HANDLING
|
Homeowners carrier not liable to insured for injuries resulting from faulty repairs.
Strader v. Grange Mutual Insurance Co.
|
Oregon Court of Appeals
January 30, 2002
|
|
The extension of limitations
period for Northridge quake is applicable even if claims would have been barred
due to delayed notice to carrier or untimely filing of suit.
|
California Court of Appeal
January 15, 2002
|
|
Earth movement exclusion applied to a "debris torrent."
|
California Court of Appeal
January 11, 2002
|
|
Carrier in bad faith
It failed to pay insured's ongoing business
expenses, provide insured with a temporary location for their business, comply with an agreement
on the cost for building repairs and when the carrier altered the claim file.
|
Arkansas Supreme Court
January 17, 2002 HANDLING
|
|
Ambiguity in what was covered found in office policy's fire coverage. Amount paid in premium was considered.
|
New York Appellate Division
December 21, 2001
|
|
Repair not necessary. Intent to do so is enough. In this appeal, the Court decided if the rights of an insured to the replacement costs of damaged property were properly assigned by the insured to a mortgagee, and whether an assignee is required to make the repairs or replace the property before the insurer is obligated to pay replacement costs. The district court and court of appeals found the assignment was valid and that the intent to rebuild by the assignee triggered the insurer's obligation to pay. The assignment was valid and conclude the assignee was relieved of the condition precedent to repair or replace the property based upon a repudiation of the insurance contract by the insurer.
|
Iowa Supreme Court
December 19, 2001
|
|
The undefined word "vacant" appearing in the exclusionary clause of the homeowner's policy is not ambiguous
|
Kansas Supreme Court
December 7, 2001
|
|
The undefined word "vacant"
appearing in the exclusionary clause of the homeowner's policy is not
ambiguous
|
Kansas Supreme Court
December 7, 2001
|
|
Even though insurer did not conduct a full investigation it did not act in bad faith for refusing to pay a mold loss. The insured failed to install a roof to prevent moisture entry.
|
Iowa Appeals Court
November 16, 2001
|
|
If not timely being raised coverage defense based on homeowner policy's business exclusion was waived.
|
New York Court of Appeals
November 15, 2001
|
|
Inherent diminished value is not covered.
|
Missouri Court of Appeals
November 13, 2001
|
|
More Recent
Earlier Cases |
|
