Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastskiguy
Yeah I'm sure that's right, the contract needs to give assignment of benefits in order for them to have a shot of getting paid if they can get money out of the insurance company.
But is there a downside for the homeowner? I can see a downside for the insurance company, the roof inspector/sales guy, and the attorney. But I'm missing where the homeowner gets screwed. Can anybody spell this out for me?
Joe
|
I have had an experience like this in Michigan where a company came out after a hail storm and said my roof was damaged. They brought out an inspector from my insurance company and they agreed it was damaged and the insurance company gave a price to replace. I did not sign over the ability of the company to negotiate with the insurance company but had them do the work at the insurance company rate. They weren’t happy but did good work
When I moved to Florida and needed home insurance, the broker and the new company I used knew that I had replaced my Michigan roof and the broker told me I would pay a higher rate because of this. So there is some consequence to have your insurance company pay for a new roof. It’s also why Florida insurance rates have skyrocketed