Parents condo burned down destroying my property

[justalayman]

I have to agree that, if any money is collected for the OP's destroyed property, then that money rightly belongs to the OP.

Btw; morally I agree with you but morals don’t win law suits.

 

[Zigner]

Still waiting for legal support for that argument.

It's his stuff - if money is paid for his stuff, then it's his money.

I don't understand your argument that it's somehow not.

 

[justalayman]

It's his stuff - if money is paid for his stuff, then it's his money.

I don't understand your argument that it's somehow not.

the insurance policy is owned by the parents. The insurance company owes the op nothing. Insurance company owes parents per contract.

Parents do not owe op anything due to the gratuitous bailment relationship


So, all you have to do is figure under what legal theory op is owed any money by anybody.




Answer me this:

If there was no insurance money, would the parents owe the op anything?

 

[quincy]

If the insurance policy has a separate category for "property owned by others" (as it appears there might be here - the policy needs to be read), the insurance covers this owned-by-others property and the insurance payout for this property goes to the owner of the property and not the policy holder.

Businesses that work on other people's property generally have insurance with this coverage. The business pays for the insurance but the payout goes to those whose property was damaged. The business does not get to keep this money.

It appears the daughter was owed the money paid out by the insurance company for the property belonging to her that was lost in the fire.

That said, the daughter might have waited too long to sue, if the statute of limitations is actually 2 years. It possibly could be 6 years. The daughter should find out which applies before proceeding.

 

[justalayman]

Businesses that work on other people's property generally have insurance with this coverage. The business pays for the insurance but the payout goes to those whose property was damaged. The business does not get to keep this money.

This is based on liability. If your car is in a garage and the garage burns and the garage owner is not negligent, simply put: you’re out of luck unless you have your own insurance.

It appears the daughter was owed the money paid out by the insurance company for the property belonging to her that was lost in the fire.

. The insurance company will not pay the op as they insurance company has no contract with the op. Besides, the parents already have the payout

That said, the daughter might have waited too long to sue, if the statute of limitations is actually 2 years. It possibly could be 6 years. The daughter should find out which applies before proceeding.

But op still needs a legal basis to sue and prevail.

It’s mine because it was my property

Is not a legal argument


The closest I have found is unjust enrichment. I have tried to find something to support a claim by the op; I haven’t. I haven’t found anything definitive the other way either

But as I said before; op has to state a valid legal theory and support their claim to prevail. I haven’t seen anybody else support a valid theory either which means op loses.



It would seem in all of jacks years in insurance it would be likely to have dealt with a situation such as this. I can’t imagine its all that uncommon. He hasn’t offered any personal experience which tends to make me believe it didn’t play out like he claims it will in this case.

 

[quincy]

But op still needs a legal basis to sue and prevail.

It’s mine because it was my property

Is not a legal argument


The closest I have found is unjust enrichment. I have tried to find something to support a claim by the op; I haven’t. I haven’t found anything definitive the other way either

But as I said before; op has to state a valid legal theory and support their claim to prevail. I haven’t seen anybody else support a valid theory either which means op loses.



It would seem in all of jacks years in insurance it would be likely to have dealt with a situation such as this. I can’t imagine its all that uncommon. He hasn’t offered any personal experience which tends to make me believe it didn’t play out like he claims it will in this case.

Possible insurance fraud?

The parents' insurance policy really needs to be read - and then the proper statute of limitations determined - before any legal action can be considered.

 

[justalayman]

Possible insurance fraud?

The parents' insurance policy really needs to be read - and then the proper statute of limitations determined - before any legal action can be considered.

Fraud? It appears the contract likely covers property, even that owned by others, for loss. Since there is likely such coverage and it was the parents policy, it would be the parents that created the list of lost property and the check would be written to them. No fraud there.


Btw: from what I read, I believe the sol is either 6 or 10 years.

 

[quincy]

Fraud? It appears the contract likely covers property, even that owned by others, for loss. Since there is likely such coverage and it was the parents policy, it would be the parents that created the list of lost property and the check would be written to them. No fraud there.


Btw: from what I read, I believe the sol is either 6 or 10 years.

As I read through the various statute of limitations, 6 years seemed to fit ... but I am not confident saying that for sure.

Fraud would come in if the parents claimed losses to personal property when the property did not belong to them - and then further did not pay the rightful property owners from the insurance proceeds.

If I let you park your car in my garage and your car is destroyed in a fire, do I get to claim the loss as my own loss and keep the insurance money?

 

[justalayman]

As I read through the various statute of limitations, 6 years seemed to fit ... but I am not confident saying that for sure.

Fraud would come in if the parents claimed losses to personal property when the property did not belong to them - and then further did not pay the rightful property owners from the insurance proceeds.

If I let you park your car in my garage and your car is destroyed in a fire, do I get to claim the loss as my own loss and keep the insurance money?

Oregon has a “if nothing else fits” sol where 10 years is the number.

2017 ORS 12.140¹

Actions not otherwise provided for

An action for any cause not otherwise provided for shall be commenced within 10 years.

 

[quincy]

Oregon has a “if nothing else fits” sol where 10 years is the number.

I think 6 years might fit - or 2 years.

 

[justalayman]

I think 6 years might fit - or 2 years.

Under what statute? I don’t see anything that fits well by statement

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/12.110

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I don’t know the answer, but I’m not sure the parents had an insurable interest in the property claimed. I would liken the situation to a life insurance policy on a stranger.

Parents may have committed insurance fraud.

 

[magick.moon]

It sure does. That the fire happened almost 4 years ago evokes a Statute of Limitations which could prevent you from succeeding in any legal action.

I have reviewed the Oregon Statutes of Limitations Chapter 12 - Limitations of Actions and Suits:

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/chapter/12
And I believe (others will certainly tell me if I am wrong) that your issue is addressed by 12.110 since nothing else seems to come close:



Based on that statute you would have had two years from the time you asked for the money and were refused. If more than two years has passed then your lawsuit would be time barred.



That's true, but Condo Unit Owners policies generally cover Replacement Cost on personal property. It's rare to see one that only covers Actual Cash Value. Condo policies are profitable to the insurance industry and many insurance companies throw in RC as a gimme or charge such a small amount that most people buy it. Even my former employer that wrote high risk properties had a reasonably priced RC option.



Which means that any money collected for the "property of others" is held in a "constructive trust" for the benefit of the "others."

Though now that the SOL has reared its ugly head, this discussion may have become moot.

I was preceding as I was advised to

It sure does. That the fire happened almost 4 years ago evokes a Statute of Limitations which could prevent you from succeeding in any legal action.

I have reviewed the Oregon Statutes of Limitations Chapter 12 - Limitations of Actions and Suits:

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/chapter/12
And I believe (others will certainly tell me if I am wrong) that your issue is addressed by 12.110 since nothing else seems to come close:



Based on that statute you would have had two years from the time you asked for the money and were refused. If more than two years has passed then your lawsuit would be time barred.



That's true, but Condo Unit Owners policies generally cover Replacement Cost on personal property. It's rare to see one that only covers Actual Cash Value. Condo policies are profitable to the insurance industry and many insurance companies throw in RC as a gimme or charge such a small amount that most people buy it. Even my former employer that wrote high risk properties had a reasonably priced RC option.



Which means that any money collected for the "property of others" is held in a "constructive trust" for the benefit of the "others."

Though now that the SOL has reared its ugly head, this discussion may have become moot.

I completely understand what you're saying. BUT, after the fire they assured me that they would replace my stuff. They worked on that claim for at least a year. Around that time we began to have a falling out for entirely different reasons. Regardless, I was under the impression they were still going tho take care of replacing my stuff. Why wouldn't they right? They've never said they changed their mind. They've just IGNORED ME. They never gave me notice. Does that make a difference?

This may be irrelevant but it's the letter I received from the fire Marshall:
The Golden Poles fire cause is listed as Undetermined. The fire burned for 5 days before being declared out and in that time, the use of excavators was used to assist in extinguishing the fire and destroyed any possible area of fire origin.

As for your parents, I do not know who their insurance carrier was at the time of the fire. While investigating the fire, I worked with several different insurance companies and private fire investigators that were hired. The (HOA) carried fire insurance for the common areas of the building. The HOA should have a contact person through their website: (link removed)

 

[Zigner]

I was preceding as I was advised to

I completely understand what you're saying. BUT, after the fire they assured me that they would replace my stuff. They worked on that claim for at least a year. Around that time we began to have a falling out for entirely different reasons. Regardless, I was under the impression they were still going tho take care of replacing my stuff. Why wouldn't they right? They've never said they changed their mind. They've just IGNORED ME. They never gave me notice. Does that make a difference?

This may be irrelevant but it's the letter I received from the fire Marshall:
The Golden Poles fire cause is listed as Undetermined. The fire burned for 5 days before being declared out and in that time, the use of excavators was used to assist in extinguishing the fire and destroyed any possible area of fire origin.

As for your parents, I do not know who their insurance carrier was at the time of the fire. While investigating the fire, I worked with several different insurance companies and private fire investigators that were hired. The xxx Homeowner’s association (HOA) carried fire insurance for the common areas of the building. The HOA should have a contact person through their website: <redacted>

I removed the identifying info.

The statute of limitation starts running at the time the loss was incurred. In your case, that could be considered to be at the time that the items were paid for, but you didn't see that payment.

 

[justalayman]

I don’t know the answer, but I’m not sure the parents had an insurable interest in the property claimed. I would liken the situation to a life insurance policy on a stranger.

Parents may have committed insurance fraud.

Jack stated condo insurance typically covers property if others within your premises. I’m not how fraud could come into play if the items were covered regardless of ownership.