“On Property” - Insurance Claim Tips Blog

I was watching one of the “Homeowners Policy & Claims Bill of Rights Working Group” meetings the other day when a segment of the meeting featured a homeowner couple who took the time to appear at the meeting and tell their story about their insurance loss and claim that resulted from an unfortunate fire in their residence.  These folks told the committee they wanted to share this experience in hopes that something good would come out of their very bad experience trying to deal with an insurance property loss on their own.

Q. An insurance adjuster came and inspected our house for roof damage following a hail storm. He indicated that only part of the roof needed repair. In the process of getting off the roof, he slipped and caused some damage to the roof and to the gutters which he added to the coverage. I have heard but can't find documentation that in Alabama, if the adjuster creates damage the insurance company is liable for the full roof and not just the damaged portion. I would like to confirm this as fact or fiction?

Q. My vacant property was vandalized (electrical, plumbing, bath & kitchen fixtures were destroyed). The insurance company denied my claim for vandalism as they considered theft was involved. Vandalism is a covered peril, theft is not. The definition of vandalism is not absolute (there are five to seven forms of vandalism, depending on the authority) and, there is no definition of theft given in the policy (nor will any representative provide one). One form of vandalism is that of acquisitive vandalism. Clearly when the value of the property damages exceeds 100 times the value of the petty theft, there would be a case for this form of vandalism. In this case the property damage estimate was $25,000 and the estimated value of the scrap wire and used fixtures was $200. Can a claim be successful based on the assertion that, barring a specific exclusion for acquisitive vandalism, the incident was in fact vandalism?