Parents condo burned down destroying my property

[magick.moon]

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.

Correct. I was not informed when the payment to them was made to my parents. They have ignored all my communication regarding this matter. At this point, I would not be surprised if my father was aware of the statute of limitations and and ignored me purposely while the time expired.
Would a court take this into consideration? That I was never giving notice of any kind?

 

[magick.moon]

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.

Are you saying I have no remedy to make good on our original understanding and agreement to replace my property?

 

[magick.moon]

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 (HOA) carried fire insurance for the common areas of the building. The HOA should have a contact person through their website: (link removed)

You said I would have 2 years from the date my request for reimbursement was refused but it was never 'refused'. It was ignored. Furthermore, the originally understanding was they were going to replace my items. I had no way of knowing they changed their mind and therefore was unaware of any statute of limitations. Would a court take this into consideration!

 

[magick.moon]

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.

Is there any way for me to find out who their insurer was that paid the claim?

 

[magick.moon]

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.

My parents have kept me in the dark about their pay out. Nobody wants to take that the parents to court. They ignored all my inquiries so how was it to know?

 

[justalayman]

Are you saying I have no remedy to make good on our original understanding and agreement to replace my property?

So there is more to the story?

 

[Zigner]

Correct. I was not informed when the payment to them was made to my parents. They have ignored all my communication regarding this matter. At this point, I would not be surprised if my father was aware of the statute of limitations and and ignored me purposely while the time expired.
Would a court take this into consideration? That I was never giving notice of any kind?

It is reasonable to assume that you would have known about the payout.

 

[quincy]

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.

Reread adjusterjack's post again. Insurance coverage for other people's property, whether under home or condo insurance, must be requested.

Claiming items that didn't belong to you or lying about the items that were destroyed or exaggerating the value of the items lost ... this is all insurance fraud.

My parents have kept me in the dark about their pay out. Nobody wants to take that the parents to court. They ignored all my inquiries so how was it to know?

You probably would have been smart to file your own claim after the fire.

Speak to an attorney in your area now to see if you have waited too long to pursue a legal action against your parents to recover the value of the items you lost in the fire.

If the time limit for filing has passed, you should forget about collecting anything from your parents through a small claims court action. Your options then are to try to resolve your dispute with your parents and broach the subject of your ski equipment after everyone has forgiven everyone else, for whatever it is that needs forgiveness.

Whether you want to report possible fraud is up to you. A report will certainly not help you smooth things over with your parents, though.

 

[justalayman]

Reread adjusterjack's post again. Insurance coverage for other people's property, whether under home or condo insurance, must be requested.

Claiming items that didn't belong to you or lying about the items that were destroyed or exaggerating the value of the items lost ... this is all insurance fraud.

I understand it must be requested


And we have no reason to suspect the parents did anything improper.


But if they did improperly claim it was their property, then the op is owed absolutely nothing and it’s up to the insurance provider to deal with her parents.

 

[quincy]

But if they did improperly claim it was their property, then the op is owed absolutely nothing and it’s up to the insurance provider to deal with her parents.

If the parents fraudulently reported as their own the property of others, they most certainly DO owe the others the amount of insurance collected on the property values.

 

[justalayman]

If the parents fraudulently reported as their own the property of others, they most certainly DO owe the others the amount of insurance collected on the property values.

No. They would owe the money to the insurance company.

If the op fought to recieve payment she knows were gained fraudulently, she is just as dirty as the parents. She couldn’t go into court with clean hands and as such, would be due nothing.

 

[quincy]

Whatever.

The daughter knows her parents claimed the ski equipment as a loss. The insurance company paid out on the loss. If "other people's property" was covered by the policy, the parents only need to pay these "other people" for their losses.

The daughter can approach her parents to collect, sue to collect (if the statute of limitations allows), or she can report fraud. One obviously works best to preserve family harmony.

If the parents pay the daughter, the problem is resolved.

 

[justalayman]

I think there is already a lack of harmony per the op’s statements about her parents.

 

[magick.moon]

It's been about a year since I started this post. My small claims trial is today. I'm curious what you meant when you asked if there's more to the story. There definitely is...

 

[magick.moon]

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?

It is reasonable to assume that you would have known about the payout.

How so? They stopped speaking to me.