Federal Judge in Mississippi 'Storm Surge' Case Upholds Home Insurance Flood Exclusion
National News • April 13, 2006
A federal judge in Mississippi has upheld the water damage exclusion in homeowners insurance policies in a ruling welcomed by insurers.
U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter, Jr. of the Southern ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: Tony - Honorable Insurers-Adjusters Know What Is Truely Fair
Posted On: May 17, 2006, 12:40 am CDT
Posted By: Roger Poe
Comment:
Tuesday, May 16,2006
Tony,
Interesting commentary. Attacking me though does not address real and unfair claim handling conduct.
Too, you seem to think my commentary is about myself some how.
Actually, it's clearly about insurers and adjusters that try to take advantage of indemnification value, and reconstruction assessing and reconstruction cost estimating naive, claimants.
You know, the kind of insurers and adjusters that pretend they can't grasp the fact that when a builder builds a house, they put a roofing system on using their financially planned for roofing contractor sub.
The roofing system has BOTH the builders' AND the roofing contractors' business cost built into it. Agreed?
(By the way, the same primary-general-builder / sub-trade contractors business cost value principles apply to all trade work components of a given structure, that make up it's whole).
If someone were to then insure the ACTUAL construction value of their roof only, what all TRUE replacement cost value would need to be covered / indemnified?
If you said, A builder valued roofing system, and all that that means, you would be correct...no?
Some construction business naive adjusters cannot grasp basic dollar investment math behind "Cost Plus 10% estimation schedules.
Simply stated, hard and soft business costs (overhead) require real investment dollars to accomplish a given goal, that of making a pre-tax 10% return on the whole [overhead cost dollars] investment risk.
Yes Tony, anticipating a 10% profit on ALL parts of the "Cost" investment puzzle is fair and reasonable.
Do not get into the construction business, or claim to estimate reconstruction losses correctly, if you do not realize that business overhead is a constant project-to-project dollar investment.
Now you have no reason to not understand that business overhead dollars is part of the whole investment risk of the investing contractor, and a true 10% profit potential can be anticipated, on insurance related projects, or none insurance related projects, only when ALL "Costs" have a 10% margin applied to them.
Oh, and another thing Tony, I did include depreciation in the State Farm figures.
The point of the figures was to show how synthetic replacement cost math, that pretends that Contractor business overhead and profit is NOT part of Replacement Cost Values, upfront, would leave a claimant with a synthetic ACV sum.
You may want to review my past commentary from that perspective.
Too, I rarely have a problem with adjusters that can properly assess damaged property, understand sound reconstruction procedures and recognize rational reconstruction cost estimation methodology.
Any insurers / adjusters that intentionally try to do the opposite, and harm my clients, family, neighbors, or me, well...they get reported to the proper authorities.
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com
P.S. For the past fourteen years, and especially the last four years, I and other contractors, and consumers, have met all kinds of unscrupulous and dishonorable insurers and adjusters.
Those insurers and adjusters that like to confuse the general public, and pretend they don't, no longer have the luxury of getting away with either illicit scheme.
You may want to pay close attention to the Enron case actors, and as you do, keep in mind that complacency can be a serious matter that draws other's attention...
Subject: Tony - Honorable Insurers-Adjusters Know What Is Truely Fair
Tony,
Interesting commentary. Attacking me though does not address real and unfair claim handling conduct.
Too, you seem to think my commentary is about myself some how.
Actually, it's clearly about insurers and adjusters that try to take advantage of indemnification value, and reconstruction assessing and reconstruction cost estimating naive, claimants.
You know, the kind of insurers and adjusters that pretend they can't grasp the fact that when a builder builds a house, they put a roofing system on using their financially planned for roofing contractor sub.
The roofing system has BOTH the builders' AND the roofing contractors' business cost built into it. Agreed?
(By the way, the same primary-general-builder / sub-trade contractors business cost value principles apply to all trade work components of a given structure, that make up it's whole).
If someone were to then insure the ACTUAL construction value of their roof only, what all TRUE replacement cost value would need to be covered / indemnified?
If you said, A builder valued roofing system, and all that that means, you would be correct...no?
Some construction business naive adjusters cannot grasp basic dollar investment math behind "Cost Plus 10% estimation schedules.
Simply stated, hard and soft business costs (overhead) require real investment dollars to accomplish a given goal, that of making a pre-tax 10% return on the whole [overhead cost dollars] investment risk.
Yes Tony, anticipating a 10% profit on ALL parts of the "Cost" investment puzzle is fair and reasonable.
Do not get into the construction business, or claim to estimate reconstruction losses correctly, if you do not realize that business overhead is a constant project-to-project dollar investment.
Now you have no reason to not understand that business overhead dollars is part of the whole investment risk of the investing contractor, and a true 10% profit potential can be anticipated, on insurance related projects, or none insurance related projects, only when ALL "Costs" have a 10% margin applied to them.
Oh, and another thing Tony, I did include depreciation in the State Farm figures.
The point of the figures was to show how synthetic replacement cost math, that pretends that Contractor business overhead and profit is NOT part of Replacement Cost Values, upfront, would leave a claimant with a synthetic ACV sum.
You may want to review my past commentary from that perspective.
Too, I rarely have a problem with adjusters that can properly assess damaged property, understand sound reconstruction procedures and recognize rational reconstruction cost estimation methodology.
Any insurers / adjusters that intentionally try to do the opposite, and harm my clients, family, neighbors, or me, well...they get reported to the proper authorities.
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com
P.S. For the past fourteen years, and especially the last four years, I and other contractors, and consumers, have met all kinds of unscrupulous and dishonorable insurers and adjusters.
Those insurers and adjusters that like to confuse the general public, and pretend they don't, no longer have the luxury of getting away with either illicit scheme.
You may want to pay close attention to the Enron case actors, and as you do, keep in mind that complacency can be a serious matter that draws other's attention...