Having sufficient insurance for repair and replacement is crucial for property owners in Florida. However, with the number of natural disasters that are happening in the Sunshine State, it is growing increasingly difficult to get the necessary coverage to pay for repair and replacement.
In some cases, the company lowballs the policyholder or uses questionable interpretations of the fine print to avoid paying. In egregious circumstances, the adjusters’ assessments have been altered. Now, with updated rules put in effect, homeowners are facing more obstacles in getting payment if there is a disagreement with their insurer. Having professional assistance can be a critical aspect of collecting the maximum based on the policy.
Be aware of the options to settle disputes with the insurer
The rules changes have added obstacles to filing lawsuits against insurers to collect when there is a dispute. A recent change by Citizens Property Insurance Corp. has made it more difficult for public adjusters to receive the 10% they get when an insurance claim is settled for the amount they suggested.
State law says they are supposed to receive that amount. The problem is that the homeowner can have trouble getting other assessments of the damage so they can receive fair compensation for what they have lost. The adjuster’s role is vital to the process as it gives a guide as to the amount the policyholder can receive for the damage. If there is a disagreement, the owner needs to seek other means to get what they believe they are owed.
With this change, people should be cognizant of what they can do to raise the amount to something they believe to be fairer. Going to mediation can be an effective strategy. The property owner and the insurer can see a neutral third party to try and bridge the gap between what the assessment of the damage is from the perspective of the insurer and what the policyholder thinks they should receive to repair or rebuild. These results are non-binding, so there is nothing to lose. Insurance companies are supposed to advise the policyholder of this option.
Having an appraisal is not as common as it used to be, but it is an alternative to explore. With an appraisal, the value of the damaged property will be assessed so there is a guideline of what should be paid to repair or replace it. If, for example, the person had collectibles that were ruined by a flood, they can have the appraiser value it.
The sides pay for their chosen appraiser. For significant gaps in the appraisal, a third appraiser can be brought in with both sides sharing the cost. Increasingly, insurers are taking this out of the policy.
An arbiter could be used. This is like a trial. A legal professional will oversee it, listen to the arguments from both sides and decide. The policy dictates who pays for arbitration. Some insurance companies offer incentives not to have arbitration as an option such as lower premiums.
Insurers should not be allowed to lowball or deny claims without justification
People have insurance because it is meant to protect them in emergencies. The problem is that many companies are happy to take the payments for the premiums, but balk at paying the claim or do not want to pay the full amount. With that, they try to find ways to reduce the cost or not pay it at all.
People who are confronted with this catch-22 will be unsure of what steps they have available to them to hold insurance companies accountable. It can be a shock if people suffer property damage in a fire or a hurricane and then need to fight with the insurance company to get a fair settlement. Consulting with those experienced in insurance claims and pursuing companies can be helpful in making a recovery.