J
Jersey Joe
Guest
I am caught in the middle of 2 insurances companies regarding a claim for damage where the actual liability is NOT in question.
A truck struck my house, knocking same off its foundation.
The house was immediately condemned as uninhabitable by the local inspector. The house, in New Jersey, is 300 years old, but not historically certified.
The day after the accident, the claims adjusters from Ins Co A (my homeowner's insurance) and Insurance Co B ( the carrier for the trucking company whose truck hit the house)met at the scene of the accident. Liability was never a question from the start as the driver ran off the road because he was not paying attention to a curve in the road.
After discussion, the adjuster for Co B recommended that I pursue my claim with Ins Co A as the adjuster for A said I had replacement coverage whereas Adjuster for B said all he could pay is Actual Caash Value. This led me to believe that Co A would replace the areas of damage or give me the value of the house, if it is considered a total loss.
Co A then asked me to get estimates of repair. I obtained an estimate for $300,000 to repalce/repair the areas of damage by a local contractor who specializes in old houses. He said the main costs are obtaining wood and materials from old houses similar to mine that are being gutted or demolished. I paid $215,000 for the house, so I thought I would get the amount I paid for the house less the value of the land as a settlement. My Ins Co A advised that there is a clause in my contract with them that does not require them to pay for "antiquity", therefore they would only pay for modern, like, material than can be obtained at lumberyards, etc. Since the amount offered to settle was well under what I thought I should get, I hired a Public Adjuster to argue the fine points of the claim, as I am not a contractor or otherwise qualified to determine what is a just settlement. My PA, after much discussion, back and forth with my Ins Co A, was able to get about 15% more for me than the original offer by my Ins Co A. I signed a contingency contract with my PA for 10%, in which I agreed to pay and that I authorized my ins Co A to allocate and pay directly to my PA, 10% of the toal settlement, which included repairs, loss of uses, etc, etc.
I therefore received the settlement minus 10% which went to my PA.
The case then went to the subrogation dept of Ins Co A, which made a claim against Ins Co B, representing the trucking Co.
I asked my Ins Co A if I could add to the claim the 10% that was paid to my PA because I actually received 10% less than the actual settlement for repairs, etc. My Ins co A told me that, legally, they could only subrogate for the settlement plus my deductible. They suggested that I press the out-of-pocket claim directly with the Ins Co B.
I did so, however Ins Co B refuses to pay claiming that the PA was already paid, and referenced the fact that they have copies of the paid drafts, etc. I did not deny this, but felt that I was out of pocket the 10% because I had to pay an "expert' in order to collect that which was really due me, and that the 10% paid to my PA was really taken off the settlement amount, and not an "added on" bill, thus I was out of pocket the 10%. Ins Co B told me, point blank, that it was my own fault for getting a PA and I actually was paid more than I should have received (the first settlement offer from my Ins Co A) and that I shoud be thankful I got what I did!
Would someone please advise me as to my next step ( without hiring an attorney)?
A truck struck my house, knocking same off its foundation.
The house was immediately condemned as uninhabitable by the local inspector. The house, in New Jersey, is 300 years old, but not historically certified.
The day after the accident, the claims adjusters from Ins Co A (my homeowner's insurance) and Insurance Co B ( the carrier for the trucking company whose truck hit the house)met at the scene of the accident. Liability was never a question from the start as the driver ran off the road because he was not paying attention to a curve in the road.
After discussion, the adjuster for Co B recommended that I pursue my claim with Ins Co A as the adjuster for A said I had replacement coverage whereas Adjuster for B said all he could pay is Actual Caash Value. This led me to believe that Co A would replace the areas of damage or give me the value of the house, if it is considered a total loss.
Co A then asked me to get estimates of repair. I obtained an estimate for $300,000 to repalce/repair the areas of damage by a local contractor who specializes in old houses. He said the main costs are obtaining wood and materials from old houses similar to mine that are being gutted or demolished. I paid $215,000 for the house, so I thought I would get the amount I paid for the house less the value of the land as a settlement. My Ins Co A advised that there is a clause in my contract with them that does not require them to pay for "antiquity", therefore they would only pay for modern, like, material than can be obtained at lumberyards, etc. Since the amount offered to settle was well under what I thought I should get, I hired a Public Adjuster to argue the fine points of the claim, as I am not a contractor or otherwise qualified to determine what is a just settlement. My PA, after much discussion, back and forth with my Ins Co A, was able to get about 15% more for me than the original offer by my Ins Co A. I signed a contingency contract with my PA for 10%, in which I agreed to pay and that I authorized my ins Co A to allocate and pay directly to my PA, 10% of the toal settlement, which included repairs, loss of uses, etc, etc.
I therefore received the settlement minus 10% which went to my PA.
The case then went to the subrogation dept of Ins Co A, which made a claim against Ins Co B, representing the trucking Co.
I asked my Ins Co A if I could add to the claim the 10% that was paid to my PA because I actually received 10% less than the actual settlement for repairs, etc. My Ins co A told me that, legally, they could only subrogate for the settlement plus my deductible. They suggested that I press the out-of-pocket claim directly with the Ins Co B.
I did so, however Ins Co B refuses to pay claiming that the PA was already paid, and referenced the fact that they have copies of the paid drafts, etc. I did not deny this, but felt that I was out of pocket the 10% because I had to pay an "expert' in order to collect that which was really due me, and that the 10% paid to my PA was really taken off the settlement amount, and not an "added on" bill, thus I was out of pocket the 10%. Ins Co B told me, point blank, that it was my own fault for getting a PA and I actually was paid more than I should have received (the first settlement offer from my Ins Co A) and that I shoud be thankful I got what I did!
Would someone please advise me as to my next step ( without hiring an attorney)?