Dialogue About Victims

Common Problem For Disaster Survivors--Who cares...let them fend for themselves?

   This document was created because when a building is ordered demolished that has been involved in a disaster, it is unconscionable that disaster survivors are paid for partial loss when they have lost everything and are entitled to total loss. And, merely because no one told them what they really had coming and how to get it.

   This applies in this day and age, to property in every community where fire, hurricane, earthquake, tornado, flood or other disaster happen, and should be of concern to all insurance policyholders. I hope you will agree when you see how the public is affected.

Antone Braga
____________________________

The building dept. in my town is pressuring me to tear down what remains of my fire-damaged home but I don't want to yet. I'm still dealing with my insurance company. Has anyone else had a similar problem?
____________________________

When a building is ordered demolished by a building inspector because of a fire or other insured peril, the insurance company is liable for the whole loss and cannot say part of the loss is excluded because it was caused by enforcement of a city ordinance: Metropolitan Mutual Fire v. Carmen Holding Co., 220 A 2d 778 De., 1966. However, standard fire policies provide that the loss shall be calculated "without allowance for any increased cost of repair or reconstruction by reason of any ordinance or law regulating construction or repair." At first glance this appears to be a contradiction, but the above quoted clause applies to partial losses and not total losses. If it is determined that the loss is total, the clause can never come into play: A. H. Jacobson Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., D.C. Minn., 83 F. Supp. 674; Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., v. Rochester German Insurance Co., Minn., 88 NW 265; Feinbloom v. Camden Fire Insurance Ass'n., N.J., 149 A 2d 616; Netherlands Insurance Co. v. Fowler, Fla., 181 So., 2d 692; Larkin v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., Minn., 83 NW 409; Rutherford v. Royal Insurance Co., 4th Cir., 12F 2d 880; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Frank, Nev., 452 P. 2d 919; Firemen's Insurance Co. v. Houle, N.H., 69 A. 2d 696; Hamilton County Mut. Fire Insurance Co. v. Rosenbaum, Ohio, 171 NE 345; New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co. v. Murray, 7th Cir., 105 F 2d 212; Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. Peters, Texas, 379 SW 2d 946; Hamburg-Bremen Fire Insurance Co. v. Garlington, Texas, 18 SW 337; Ollie v. Security Mutual Underwriters, 4th Cir., 235 F. 2d 932; Monteleone v. Royal Insurance Co., La., 18 So. 472; Security Insurance Co. v. Rosenberg, Ky., 12 SW 2d 688.

The above court cases hold that a loss becomes a constructive total loss if it becomes a total loss by virtue of applying an ordinance or building code provision. The insurance contract is meant to indemnify and if restoration of the building is forbidden, then the policyholder has suffered a total loss. The cases involve both situations where a policyholder is ordered to demolish the building or modify to meet updated building codes, and where a policyholder is simply required to demolish. You should be warned however, that although it is proper to claim total loss under these circumstances, many insurance companies resist claims of this type. Some adjusters interpret the policy literally without considering court interpretation. Armed with these actual court cases, you should be able to convince the company adjuster of your argument for Constructive Total Loss, when one exists.

This is one example of a great many where it is essential for policyholders to have authority to file a "claim" for an amount of loss that does not agree with the insurance company. Although we have lost that right, the word "claim" has been removed from many of our insurance policies: http://www.disasterprepared.net/postmortem.html ... our presence can still be made known. And there is VAST hope. The power of people sharing a realization...the making of a presence known. The public has nowhere to turn for this otherwise unavailable information, except from those who care enough to share.

Who Cares? Hopefully, you do!
____________________________

I can speak for my fire department only. We are not involved when the building inspector condemns a building, no matter what the reason. Your information may very well be valid and important to that homeowner. I'm not sure what you are expecting us to do as again, we don't make the call to demolish or not. We are not even informed that a building is going to be demolished.
____________________________

Virtually no one dealing directly with disaster survivors is concerned with informing them that if their building is ordered demolished, they are entitled to claim total loss...not the firefighters, not the Red Cross, not FEMA, not the insurance companies, not the State Departments of Insurance, not the media...nobody says a word. The question I asked at the outset is still the question:

Common Problem For Disaster Survivors--"Who cares...let them fend for themselves?"

The continuing answer from all quarters is an emphatic, "Yes."
____________________________

What would you have us do, take money out of the FD budget to build them a new house? Its just not feasible, and as a fire dept. affiliated with the city, town county, etc., etc., it is a conflict of interest for us to recommend any type of service. Example: if I go to a wreck I can say you need to have the car towed because it is no longer safe to operate, but I cannot by any means say, call for Larry's towing service, that's who I would use. It may appear that once the fire is out we pack up our toys and go home without another thought to the individual affected, but really we are bound by laws that prohibit us from doing anything more. So, do we care? Yes we do, but we are between a rock and a hard place. So once again what would you have us do?
____________________________

No need to use any money, and no need to recommend a service, by speaking up and saying something on the order of, "If you check on the internet, there is information there that can help you understand what you have coming on your insurance claim."

By the way, I do not have a service..I publish information, a book. I can understand if no recommendation on the book is given, but the link I give has only free information that is otherwise not available to victims. Nothing is there for sale.

   Rebuilding Under Replacement Coverage
   My insurer asked me to give a recorded statement
   Claim Adjusting
http://disasterprepared.net/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewforum.php?f=2
____________________________

Dear Tony,did this happen to you? If so and the burnt house is there for visuals it may make a good story.

Please call me or e-mail back with how I can contact you during the day. Thanks,
____________________________

I saw it many times over a 20 year period of adjusting claims. It is still happening in every community where disasters occur. And, will continue unabated until those who can let victims know they have more coming than what it says in the insurance policy, share that information. Known "visuals" are a natural result of the information being made known, rather than the reverse. I agree, it is a good story, and is in the public interest. My contact information is below.

Thanks for your consideration.

Tony Braga

www.DisasterPrepared.net
PO Box 33
Montgomery, PA 17752
Email: tony@mailaka.net Tel: 570-547-1332