Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie66
Here's what I learned from my insurance agent about roof claims. I was told there is a difference between a claim that is "agreed to be valid" by your insurance agent (i.e., true storm damage) as compared to one that the insurer simply "acquiesces to the claim" (i.e., not true storm damage, but simply normal wear and tear on the roofs) because they do not want to fight a fraudulent case in court. Fighting in court costs the insurer ~$50K on average versus paying a $10K-$20K claim.
In the case of the latter, if the insurer inspected the roof, and did not find sufficient damage to qualify as storm damage as opposed to normal wear, your file is labelled as having submitted a fraudulent claim. This information is shared with other insurance companies which could result in much higher premiums for the homeowner or their inability to obtain insurance with a storm damage rider. Either way, you and your neighbors will pay higher premiums.
A friend of ours just purchased a home in TVs. The Villages Insurance was reluctant to provide a storm damage rider because the roof was >10 years old. They wound up paying over $1900 for full coverage with USAA.
Some insurers have already revised their policies to prorate storm damage, with a steep reduction in storm damage coverage once the roof is older than 10 years. The others will no doubt follow their lead.
Most insurers in Sumter County have or soon will raise their rates significantly if you have an older roof.
|
I don't think that what your insurance agent told you is correct. It would not make sense for an insurance company to pay $10-$20K for a fraudulent claim. That would just encourage more fraudulent claims. Insurance companies have more money and better lawyers than any roofing company. An insurance agent is basically a salesperson, who doesn't approve claims anyway. I think your agent is misinformed about how claims are approved.