Does the typical homeowner have the expertise to inspect and evaluate the construction of a major loss? The answer is an obvious “no”. Nevertheless, it is a rare occasion that a larger repair estimate requires any costs associated with preparing design specifications and then inspecting the design to determine if the specifications are met.
The idea that policyholders should have the reasonable cost of an architect or owner’s representative to evaluate and inspect the disaster restoration structure was raised again in the latest post, Kevin Jones explains why TPAs and Managed Contractor Repair Networks are fraudsters against policyholders. A comment was made on the post by James Purcell:
I agree that these programs are terrible for policyholders and I have personally seen dozens of examples first and foremost where the performance and repair experience of the insured was absolutely unacceptable. Two years ago, we would only occasionally have left as expert witnesses for contractor care requirements and that has become a significant part of our workload lately.
I inspected a 2,500 square foot home in Titusville last Friday that had an angle stop under the sink leak. I have just finished writing a list of everything that the TPA contractor repaired incorrectly or damaged during the repair process. It is 3 pages long.
No premium discount is worth joining these programs.
California has tried to address this situation with rules, noted by Victor Jacobelli in California Regulations require an insurer̵7;s preferred provider to restore property to its condition prior to the loss – a quick guide to what you need to know:
California provides protection when a preferred supplier is selected for loss-making repairs. Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations require that when an insurer either recommends or proposes to a seller to repair property and the insured chooses to have that seller repair the damage, the insurer is obligated to ensure that the damaged property is returned to its former condition. loss condition. The insurer is obliged to do this at no extra cost to the insured. The insurer is also obliged to ensure that the property is repaired in a way that meets accepted industry standards for good and artisanal construction. Cal. Cod. Reg. § 2695.9 (c) (2).
If the policyholder is not equipped to take a position on the quality and legality of the construction, it seems that a reasonable cost for the construction would be inspection and evaluation by someone qualified. What do you think?
Trust but verify.