What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? California
My wife recently lost her wedding ring. The ring was insured for approximately $24,000. This amount was based upon the original appraised retail value in 1993 ($18,000) plus annual increases to account for inflation.
Upon submitting a claim, the insurance company advised that they are only obligated to pay the actual replacement cost of the ring as opposed to the full insured value. There is no argument here since the policy states this quite clearly.
However, upon taking the original appraisal to a couple of jewelers to have them determine the replacement cost (based upon the description of the ring in the appraisal), I have learned that the actual replacement cost of a ring is typically far less than the appraised retail value. Therefore, as opposed to recovering the full insured value of $24,000 for the loss of the ring, I may only be able to recover $12,000, which is the estimated replacement cost.
I would be ok with this amount as a settlement if I had not been paying my premiums based upon an assumed value of $24,000, which the insurance company unilaterally determined. Considering that the insurance company is well aware that the replacement cost is considerably less than the appraised retail value, I feel that the insurance company has not acted in good faith by requiring me to pay a premium on an amount they are fully aware is far in excess of what their actual obligation to pay will ever be.
Considering that I have been paying premiums om $24,000 worth of coverage, is there any way that I can obtain a settlement in excess of the actual replacement cost?
How can insurance companies base their premiums on the retail value and only be obligated for the replacement value?
My wife recently lost her wedding ring. The ring was insured for approximately $24,000. This amount was based upon the original appraised retail value in 1993 ($18,000) plus annual increases to account for inflation.
Upon submitting a claim, the insurance company advised that they are only obligated to pay the actual replacement cost of the ring as opposed to the full insured value. There is no argument here since the policy states this quite clearly.
However, upon taking the original appraisal to a couple of jewelers to have them determine the replacement cost (based upon the description of the ring in the appraisal), I have learned that the actual replacement cost of a ring is typically far less than the appraised retail value. Therefore, as opposed to recovering the full insured value of $24,000 for the loss of the ring, I may only be able to recover $12,000, which is the estimated replacement cost.
I would be ok with this amount as a settlement if I had not been paying my premiums based upon an assumed value of $24,000, which the insurance company unilaterally determined. Considering that the insurance company is well aware that the replacement cost is considerably less than the appraised retail value, I feel that the insurance company has not acted in good faith by requiring me to pay a premium on an amount they are fully aware is far in excess of what their actual obligation to pay will ever be.
Considering that I have been paying premiums om $24,000 worth of coverage, is there any way that I can obtain a settlement in excess of the actual replacement cost?
How can insurance companies base their premiums on the retail value and only be obligated for the replacement value?