It has been interesting. The fire wiped out a number of people in our bay alone and we have not all had similar experiences with insurance claims.
My one insured street car stored there was of course covered though establishing its value ultimately came down to hiring an independent appraiser. The outcome was entirely satisfactory.
As understood, my other automobiles and parts were not covered under my homeowners policy. There was some thought that new parts in the box would be, but I’m told that’s not true in their newer policies and see nothing to contradict them.
So that left everything else I had there in terms of tools, equipment, non-automotive supplies, etc. including a very expensive chassis dyno. While one of the other occupants was being told that off-premises coverage is limited to 10% of his contents coverage amount and subsequently closed out his claim, I was compiling my extensive list and seeking more information here and elsewhere. That included a call to the claims department after Jack’s statements here to ask explicitly about this so-called off premises rule which I noted above. The wording for my policy is nearly identical to that of my friend who had already given up, both following the HO-3 template. The lady who took my call assured me that she could answer my questions so I proceeded. Her answer was the same as my buddy kept getting but I had zero doubt that she was interpreting the relevant passage as she read it, not speaking from prior knowledge, training or experience let alone expertise. I pressed her a bit more but she saw no need to consult anyone. Hmmm... maybe I am SOL. Later that day I called back, got someone else and insisted on being transferred up to a senior claims person. (From professional experience I know that 1st level call center people are generally there to handle the same relatively few common questions or problems, working from FAQ & A scripts. What’s hard to get them to do is know when to escalate.) The person I got next also assured me he was the right guy to answer any questions, but he at least quickly observed that I had called earlier in the day. I filled him in on the details of that prior call and he said the answer I got was wrong. My interpretation of the relevant 10% limit clause is correct and therefore it does not apply to my situation. By then of course I was too leery of anyone claiming to “know” anything so I didn’t celebrate but I did ask for his name again. He laughed, gave it to me and then stated that we would document my questions and his answers in my file so there would be no confusion.
With that I began submitting my extensive claim inventory list. A couple days later I got a call from the Special Investigative Unit that my claim had been reassigned to them. They were nice enough and I cooperated with what information I had and put them in contact with others involved. It wasn’t long before they completed their investigation and kicked it back to claims.
The adjusters did their bit, assigning depreciated values and kicking back anything they could construe as a car part, some of which were amusing but easily challenged and reversed. Within a day of returning the list for my initial review they had transferred the depreciated total to my bank. Then they went a step further in the case of the dyno. It was in exceptional condition as recent photos showed, but it was also 15 years old so the actual cash value came in at less than 30% of replacement. Buying a new one would normally have required that I pay up front then get reimbursed so without being asked they suggested I use the ACV as a down-payment and have they manufacturer send them an invoice and sales contract showing the payment made and balance due. Once received they would deposit the remaining balance in advance of shipment. It went exactly as described with no time wasted and my new dyno is on a boat from New Zealand.
Meanwhile, after my second call gave me reason to hope, I badgered my friend into reopening his claim. He was doubtful but did try calling his insurance company again and escalating. Once again a “supervisor” told him his stuff wasn’t covered but when pressed that he had legal advice telling him different she fumbled by saying at most he would get 20% because it would be considered storage. I told him to crack the champagne, he just won! They had now effectively conceded that the 10% limit did not apply and were looking for another way to screw him. It’s extremely easy to show that he was not using the space as storage but as an active garage for building a race car, the progress of which he was documenting. He has just submitted his full inventory and is waiting for their next move.
So, thank you Jack for the benefit of your experience and the boost it gave me to not accept the first answer my own insurance company gave me even when it matched what others were being told and quite a bit of (bad) information here and elsewhere on the internet.
