| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Catmandale
USA
67 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2003 : 14:17:16
|
Jack,
It is my opinion that the contents storage costs should be moved to either dwelling coverage(if moved to faciliate dwelling repair) or contents coverage(if moved to prevent further contents damage), whichever is to your greatest benefit, if limits apply. It is likely both scenarios apply.
In my opinion, ALE is a broadly vague, misunderstood, mis-applied and under-utilized coverage.
In your situation, it seems that you are a bedroom and a bath short of achieving parity in your style of living, notwithstanding your neighborhood and other issues.
I hope that you are able to get this sorted out, it really sounds like a terrible mess.
Good luck.
Dale Strain |
"When we thought that we had all the answers,
suddenly all the questions changed."
Mario Benedetti (1920); Uruguayan writer.
|
Edited by - Catmandale on 04/20/2003 14:20:12 |
 |
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2003 : 15:14:25
|
Quick note regarding limits of ALE as I read them in our current TX policies:
HOA-Plus has a limit of 10% of coverage A as add'l insurance, w/ no deductible.
this policy is being phased out to be replaced by the
HOA-Plus Revised which has a limit of 20% as add'l insurance, w/ no deductible, and does not apply to "ale... due to fungi... from perils... 9-16."
There is no mention of a 24 month limit for my company. I think this is an area it would be wise to read the policy of the company you are working for before making any promises to an insured. Both of these changes detailed above are written as endorsements on the HOA policy and were achieved, I belive, through "me too" filings -- meaning there is another company in the state (maybe Travellers) that began using these endorsements first.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2003 : 17:08:42
|
Driftwood has entered this thread, established on 2/10/03, with a real life claim; that is obviously of great concern to him. I'm sure we are not privy to all the details, and by that I mean we still have less than 1/2 the story; with the USAA file contents (the other 1/2) being mere speculation. However, having framed 'the story' with those parameneters regarding our 'view' of it; some things certainly do stand out. As I sit here in the comfort of my home office, I do reflect on this issue with the mindset of sitting within the carrier's office faced with this claim scenario.
I did state in my 2/26/03 comment in this thread that, "this is a coverage that separates carriers and distinguishes those who apply their claims philosophy and attitude fairly, and those who do not".
We are told of two similar covered losses, one on April 3/02, and the other some 31 days ("over 30 days") past that.
The adjuster activated ALE coverage on 4/3/02, for that 1st loss.
I'll say that on May 7th or so, the 2nd similar loss occurred. However, on that date, I have to make several presumptions regarding the carrier's activity on the 1st loss.
(a) the carrier had 'a grip' on the potential loss situation
(b) a plan 'of attack' had been established
(c) a remediation plan and a repair plan had been established
(d) work towards the 'goals' had commenced
I would think it would be a relatively safe conclusion to make that the 2nd loss caused the plans and work in effect up to "May 7th" to be redundant, and should have caused a total new assessment and reformatting of (b&c) above and then be restarted.
If there is any validity to my conclusion above, and with a 2nd claim file opened (rightfully so); a second limit of ALE should be available in the manner that has been well detailed in other posts.
How to apportion the 2nd available ALE 'chunk' would at first seem difficult. However, I suggest that as soon as "dollar one" of the 2nd ALE availability was acknowledged by the carrier; that the "check book" is then open for proper indemnification of any of that amount up to the limit.
The contents storage, charged as an ALE expense is wrong, and should have been dealt with exactly as Dale later stated. This should become a quickly agreed to fact between Jack's solicitor and the carrier; freeing up whatever ALE dollars were wrongly allocated for this.
Finally, the carrier has to have "issues" with their chosen contractors; given the information provided by Jack in that regard.
I would like to think, from my 'carrier chair', that I would never allow this nightmare to unfold - a horror story for both Jack and the carrier. I did in fact have a similar claim years ago that had a lot of the same "issues", that I had to fight through with my executive; so as to prevent a nightmare on either side.
Anyway, this mess exits, Jack has legal representation as does USAA. I'm sure in time, Jack will be properly indemnified subject to the limits available, plus other damages. As well in time, the responding USAA office will learn important lessons, in a rather costly way; in what "best practices" should be followed in claims of this nature.
My personal apologies to you Jack, for the apparent manner the insurance industry has chosen to respond in your time of need.
USAA may be a great company, but like any other company, it is only as good to you as the specific person is that is delivering or providing the commodity you purchased. In this case, the commodity - a fair and accurate adjustment of two claims; does seem flawed. |
|
|
|
driftwoodjack
12 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2003 : 15:52:33
|
I’d like to clarify a couple of points regarding ALE and content storage. The original containment area covered only the master bedroom and bath. This included our closets. As a result, we were approved to rent a storage facility (10x12) in which we stored the contents from our closets and dressers. This $100 + per month expense was charged against ALE.
After the 4th clearance test failed, the whole east side of our home (3 bedrooms, 6, closets, 2 bathrooms) were packed out and stored. This storage was charged against dwelling.
I fully appreciate and realize that only one side of this story is being told. I am mindful that USAA, or its legal representatives may review or even subpoena the contents of this discussion. I guess everyone participating should keep that in mind.
In summary of the events as they transpired, I have an opinion on why we ended up where we have. Although I have no personal animosity towards USAA adjuster Patrick Koester, I think his greatest failure was that he directed the remediation effort to just to pass an air sampling clearance test. I believe this methodology is flawed in logic.
The purpose of remediation should be the removal of the toxic mold, not just to pass a clearance test. The end result should be the clearance test passes because the source of water leak has been fixed, and the toxic mold growth has actually been removed. The mold growth should not have been just temporarily sealed off, or painted over (encapsulant coating) by employing defective remediation methods.
I believe that if Mr. Koester would have stepped aside and let the certified mold professionals do what was necessary the issue of ALE on the second claim may have never surfaced. And most likely we could have avoided costly litigation.
|
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2003 : 16:23:28
|
Jack, I still feel that the first period of contents storage, charged as an ALE cost, should be recoded to the contents or building reserve, and however many months at $100 / mo, should be freed up and credited back to the ALE reserve on the first claim.
I personally could care less what the USAA thinks about this forum discussion, and specifically anything I may have to say in it.
I recognize you have legal representation, however if there is anything I can do to assist your cause; please feel free to email me. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2003 : 17:23:39
|
| Clayton, this is one of the most informative ALE discussions I have seen on here. I have one question and I think you already provided the answer. Was or is the storage of household furnishings a part of the remediation process and should not have been charged against the ALE? |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2003 : 17:52:06
|
| Newt, the storage of contents should have been reported under either Coverage A or Coverage C, and not taken under ALE. In this case, the carrier should restore that portion of contents storage reported under ALE and make it available to the insured for any necessary payments under ALE. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2003 : 18:12:47
|
| That is what I was getting out of it, I couldn't understand the charge to ALE. I can see now where it could be charged to A or C. |
|
|
|
driftwoodjack
12 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
How To Handle The ALE Claim
Forum Locked
