An eighty-eight-year-old widow was confused and perplexed about why both her taxes and insurance had increased. She reached out to me for further understanding.
What she did not know, and most homeowners do not understand, often the county records used for tax assessment purposes are not accurate. Thus, this directly impacts and makes the insurance information incorrect because they use the data collected from the county records. This comes under the “Dwelling Characteristics” in an insurance policy.
Upon further review and investigation, I determined there were 17 crucial mistakes that directly impacted both tax assessment and insurance premium, as per the data used to determine RCV (replacement cost value).
The insurance company uses this data to determine
You the insured are responsible and accountable for any changes and mistakes to your dwelling and property description. Any changes that need to be made, you the insured need to call your insurance company.
The Dwelling Coverage Limit of Liability (“Coverage A” amount) of your policy is provided on your declarations page. This Coverage A amount is based on an estimate of the Replacement Cost of your home, which has been calculated from the following information based on the Exterior, Interior, and other Characteristics of your Home:
The policy states it is the insureds responsibility to notify the insurance company of any and all changes that need to be made
After addressing these incorrect items, the woman was able to receive a reduction in both her property taxes and insurance premiums.
A retired minister had her insurance payments increase by 40% overnight, when she reached out for help. The insurance company had previously sent out an inspector to perform what is known as an Exterior ITV (Insurance to Value) inspection. They did not notify her as to why or when the inspection would take place. She had no knowledge of this inspection.
Insurance companies can send an inspector to any property they are insuring without notification. If you, the homeowner, deny the inspection, this gives them cause for immediate cancellation, which often happens.
Because of the inspection the insurance company had performed, this was why her payments increased; however, she never knew of the inspection until she contact the insurance company to inquire about the increase to her payments.
To help rectify this situation, I personally performed an exterior ITV inspection on her property to identify the hazards, attractive nuisances, and other mitigating factors. Upon inspection review, she addressed all the initial concerns and liability issues that my inspection report brought to light. After completion of the work, she was able to notify the insurance company of the completed work.
The next day, the insurance company called her back to acknowledge the changes that had been made to her policy and made the necessary adjustment to her premiums.
There was a reduction to her premium which was lower than the original amount. She was also able to obtain additional discounts to her policy that she was unaware were available.
After a couple moved from the city and wanted to purchase a home in the mountains of Colorado, they were shell-shocked by several insurance factors. A. Only one insurance provider per their specific location, B. The excessive premium attached to their insurance policy.
If this issue could not be rectified and adjusted to a reasonable premium, the couple would not be able to afford and purchase the lovely home. This deal was in jeopardy.
They contacted me to see if I could help.
We first found out who the sellers had their insurance through, and to see if the prospective buyers could obtain insurance through this same company. The insurance company requested a Wildfire Mitigation inspection to determine the following issues:
Upon review of the inspection, the insurance company determined all their criteria had been met, to their satisfaction, thus they lowered the risk rating and “grandfathered” the property in. The couple was able to proceed forward and purchase the home.
The temperature had dipped into negative digits for the last week, and this caused two pipes to burst in his rental property. The first emergency water response company came and demanded $15,000 to initially address the water problem, with an additional $15,000 to complete the project. He contacted another company to go in with fans and dry out the damaged locations within the home. They put in 12 fans and 2 dehumidifiers for 4 days.
I met with the homeowner the morning before the water response company was scheduled to perform a demo of the damaged flooring. This consisted of tearing out the expensive hardwood, marble tile, and carpet.
After a review of his insurance policy, I discovered that even though the damage would be covered, it was only at ACV. This meant that the landlord would be paying most of the cost of repairs, out of pocket.
When a policy has a loss settlement of ACV, the insured is not only on the hook for the deductible, but all materials are depreciated depending on how long they have been in the home. In this case, there was a 15-year depreciation that had to be applied to this situation.
After a brief consult with the owner, he stopped the scheduled demolition.
The initial cost of this project, from the second company, was $29,000 for the demo and restoration. This did not include the $5,000 the water response company had already billed the insurance company.
My recommendation included getting a knowledgeable construction contractor to come in and give an estimate for repairs.
The total construction costs came to $7,000, which the insurance covered all but the owner’s $1,000 deductible. This is a huge difference from him having to pay $28,000 out of pocket to only paying $1,000.
Now the homeowner has contracted with me to consult with him and do policy reviews for his his primary resident, his mother, and his brother.
We’re from the Colorado area, but we proudly serve customers across the United States of America
