Condo Insurance Question

[Mitsu3000gt]

So, unfortunately my condo had some flooding again. Not too bad, no contents damaged, but the SAME UNIT (different tenant) as 2 years ago left a window open again in -30C and thus caused damage to 14 units. I believe they are the only renter in the entire building, most are owned.

Anyway, I had a question regarding a conversation I had with the building's insurance adjuster. Apparently, carpet and hardwood flooring replacement costs are done as an average of the qualities in all the affected units. For example, they will go look at what was ORIGINALLY in the building when it was build 14 years ago, as well as what people have now, and work out some sort of overall average. They will then say you have $X/sqft to spend on carpet, and $X/sqft to spend on hardwood, which may or may not be enough to get what you had pre-flood back.

The problem with this is people with nicer flooring get downgraded, or they have to pay to get back what they had pre-flood. The people with cheap flooring get a free upgrade. To me this seems extremely unfair, since if you just gave everyone what they had pre-flood, you would arrive at the same average price, and everyone would be happy.

Am I missing something here? Or is this common practice everywhere? They told me it'll be a month before I find out what my flooring budget is for replacement, but I definitely want what I had back, no more, no less.

Last time the flood happened, I had the original hardwood (cheap 3/4 oak) so I wasn't even aware this was how they arrived at the flooring budget. I did pay to upgrade my hardwood out of my own pocket though, so I suspect I am on the higher end of the replacement cost scale.

Anyone know if this is par for the course?

[flipstah]

I'm just gonna subscribe to find out the results.

That evaluation sounds retarded but in a complex of multiple tenants, it's the logical way to be 'fair' with everyone.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by flipstah
I'm just gonna subscribe to find out the results.

That evaluation sounds retarded but in a complex of multiple tenants, it's the logical way to be 'fair' with everyone.

Logical and fair would be to give everyone what they had back, not an "average" budget which rewards people with cheap floors and punishes people who previously paid for nicer flooring. You arrive at the same average either way you do it, and it is as fair as possible, unless I'm missing something here?

The other thing is if they do it that way (overall avg price), you would think the insurance company of the tenant who caused all this should pay for any differences in cost, since it was pure negligence that caused this and not a building flaw.

[BrknFngrs]

Unfortunately no reliable input from me either but I'm very curious to hear an actual answer.

I'm with you though Mitsu; using some generic average and ignoring what you currently have is pretty ridiculous and far from "fair". The only advantage I can see to this approach is that it's less administratively intensive for the insurance company (not your problem).

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs
Unfortunately no reliable input from me either but I'm very curious to hear an actual answer.

I'm with you though Mitsu; using some generic average and ignoring what you currently have is pretty ridiculous and far from "fair". The only advantage I can see to this approach is that it's less administratively intensive for the insurance company (not your problem).

Yeah from the admin angle, what they do after they determine a budget for each unit, is 3 construction companies bid the entire 14-unit repair cost and the lowest bidder obviously gets the contract. Then it's up to me to pick out flooring, arrange installation times, etc. with said company. That's how it worked last time as well, I just was unaware how they arrived at the flooring budget, which is now affecting me since I paid for an upgrade last time.

Even so, they still need to go around and determine the individual cost/quality of everyone's flooring to arrive at this "overall" average, so it's no more work administratively to give everyone back what they had.

[flipstah]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Logical and fair would be to give everyone what they had back, not an "average" budget which rewards people with cheap floors and punishes people who previously paid for nicer flooring. You arrive at the same average either way you do it, and it is as fair as possible, unless I'm missing something here?

The other thing is if they do it that way (overall avg price), you would think the insurance company of the tenant who caused all this should pay for any differences in cost, since it was pure negligence that caused this and not a building flaw.



Originally posted by BrknFngrs
Unfortunately no reliable input from me either but I'm very curious to hear an actual answer.

I'm with you though Mitsu; using some generic average and ignoring what you currently have is pretty ridiculous and far from "fair". The only advantage I can see to this approach is that it's less administratively intensive for the insurance company (not your problem).

My rationale is that you have to treat everything you get for a multiple tenancy as a bulk purchase.

The moment customization has to happen, then everyone has to have different coverage based on what they have/don't have on their unit. That's going to be annoying to manage, especially if it's a high-rise.

That's just my take on it.

[Isaiah]

I'm on the board of our building. We recently replaced a tenant's high-end hardwood due to flooding from similar circumstances. The replacement is the same grade specs as the original. Each unit is different and is assessed individually.

In a multiple-car collision, does the insurance company settle based on the average value of all cars involved? That is a ridiculous formula.

Is this the condo's insurance, or your own coverage for contents?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by flipstah


My rationale is that you have to treat everything you get for a multiple tenancy as a bulk purchase.

The moment customization has to happen, then everyone has to have different coverage based on what they have/don't have on their unit. That's going to be annoying to manage, especially if it's a high-rise.

That's just my take on it.

The bulk purchase is identical, and the work is the same. Either way, each individual's flooring is assessed for quality. Either way, the insurance company pays the exact same amount for replacement (Giving everyone an average quality based on existing flooring is identical to giving everyone what they had originally).

It's up to the unit owner to arrange the type of flooring and installation time, so this is no extra work whatsoever for the insurance company or contractor than it would be otherwise.

There is customization either way, because it's a budget they give us, not a product. For example I will be given, say, $6.50/sq ft to go pick out hardwood, I won't be told "you're getting Oak". The problem is if the average budget number falls below the cost of my flooring, I have to pay the difference.

The hassle factor for all parties is literally identical either way, the sole difference is the overall average method is completely unfair, and the other method is completely fair.



Originally posted by Isaiah
I'm on the board of our building. We recently replaced a tenant's high-end hardwood due to flooding from similar circumstances. The replacement is the same grade specs as the original. Each unit is different and is assessed individually.

In a multiple-car collision, does the insurance company settle based on the average value of all cars involved? That is a ridiculous formula.

Is this the condo's insurance, or your own coverage for contents?

It's the Condo's insurance that pays. I believe the offending unit's insurance pays the condo's insurance's deductible. If I had any contents damaged, I would be dealing personally with my insurance company, but it's just walls/floors that are the issue so it's the condo's responsibility.

The only thing I can think of is I imagine our building is paying some sort of premium, decided upon many years ago, based on an average quality of finishing throughout the entire building (likely original spec at build time). When people go out and upgrade the flooring, and other things covered under the condo's policy and not their own, the insurance company doesn't know this and our rates don't go up, so they may not want to cover the upgrades.

In this case though, it is 100% one individual's fault, so even if the above case were true, I would think that individual's insurance should be paying the delta in replacement cost between what the insurance covers and any upgrades.

At the end of the day, if I have to pay a few hundred to get my place back to normal, it's not worth fighting. If there is a large discrepancy, I will be much more upset.

This is to the T, identical to our flood 2 years ago. Same offending unit, water damaged the same units in the same ways. Literally identical. So I mostly know what to expect, but now that I've done upgrades, I am finding out I may be getting screwed over.

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
It's the Condo's insurance that pays. I believe the offending unit's insurance pays the condo's insurance's deductible. If I had any contents damaged, I would be dealing personally with my insurance company, but it's just walls/floors that are the issue so it's the condo's responsibility.

The only thing I can think of is I imagine our building is paying some sort of premium, decided upon many years ago, based on an average quality of finishing throughout the entire building (likely original spec at build time). When people go out and upgrade the flooring, and other things covered under the condo's policy and not their own, the insurance company doesn't know this and our rates don't go up, so they may not want to cover the upgrades.

In this case though, it is 100% one individual's fault, so even if the above case were true, I would think that individual's insurance should be paying the delta in replacement cost between what the insurance covers and any upgrades.

At the end of the day, if I have to pay a few hundred to get my place back to normal, it's not worth fighting. If there is a large discrepancy, I will be much more upset.

This is to the T, identical to our flood 2 years ago. Same offending unit, water damaged the same units in the same ways. Literally identical. So I mostly know what to expect, but now that I've done upgrades, I am finding out I may be getting screwed over.
Advise the property manager in writing that you need the unit repaired to original condition. This is actually the condominium corporation's battle to fight on your behalf since it's the building's policy that's remediating damages.

[guessboi]

Upgrades from standard specs is covered under your own condo insurance under "Unit Improvements and Betterments"

See link attached regarding condo insurance.

http://www.ibc.ca/en/home_insurance/documents/brochures/condo%20brochure_eng.pdf

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by guessboi
Upgrades from standard specs is covered under your own condo insurance under "Unit Improvements and Betterments"

See link attached regarding condo insurance.

http://www.ibc.ca/en/home_insurance/documents/brochures/condo%20brochure_eng.pdf

This requires me to pay a deductible and realize increased premium costs, does it not?

My thinking is I should be out of pocket $0, unless I am misunderstanding something, since this is all the result of one individual's negligence. I want to avoid making a private claim unless the cost to me is zero.

Perhaps the best thing to do is just wait and see what I am offered, before getting too excited about things. I just want to be prepared to deal with it if I'm going to have to fight the insurance companies though.

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by flipstah
it's the logical way to be 'fair' with everyone.

There's nothing logical or fair about it.

That's like driving your Mercedes, getting hit by a Kia, and insurance paying you the cost to fix a Toyota.

It makes no sense at all, and I'd make sure I was getting the same quality of product replaced.

How hard is it for an adjuster to just check each unit and figure out what flooring everyone has? Or did they do that already, and they're just being lazy?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by CapnCrunch


There's nothing logical or fair about it.

That's like driving your Mercedes, getting hit by a Kia, and insurance paying you the cost to fix a Toyota.

It makes no sense at all, and I'd make sure I was getting the same quality of product replaced.

How hard is it for an adjuster to just check each unit and figure out what flooring everyone has? Or did they do that already, and they're just being lazy?

My understanding is they check every unit AND consider what the building had originally (3/4 Oak hardwood), then come up with some sort of "average" that will more than likely favor the insurance company.

My argument is if they are checking every unit individually anyway, and wish to arrive at an average fair price, there is no better way to do so than just give everyone what they had, rather than try arrive at a set budget for all affected units.

I have a box of the hardwood I have still, it's not even 2 years old. The model number and everything - it will be so easy.

The one unknown is what all the other units have. They are the same units that were flooded last time, so I imagine several people opted to do upgrades. If so, that will work in my favor, but I really have no idea what flooring other people have. None of it is original anymore after the last flood.


The only problem I can potentially see is if we pay our premiums based on the ORIGINAL setup back in 1999/2000. Then I could sort of see how the insurance company would not want to pay for everyone's upgrades. My problem with that is this is the sole fault of one individual, so in a 100% at-fault scenario, I believe everyone should be entitled to original condition repairs. If this were considered an Act of God, then I would be more understanding of the "flat rate average" repair budget. Instead, it was someone who decided to pop a window when it was -30C out, despite there being posters from the management company in every hallway, staircase, and elevator to leave all windows shut when it's cold out.

[JustinMCS]

I am surprised that because of one unit's fault, your corporation insurance has to pay.

This should be the insurance of the unit that covers everyone else's expense or the unit owner pays the deductible of the corporation.

Also, you should be put back to pre flood condition. That is absoutely ridiculous.

I am on the board of the condo I own and our property management has a sheet each unit fills out for upgrades they have had done.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by JustinMCS
I am surprised that because of one unit's fault, your corporation insurance has to pay.

This should be the insurance of the unit that covers everyone else's expense or the unit owner pays the deductible of the corporation.

Also, you should be put back to pre flood condition. That is absoutely ridiculous.

I am on the board of the condo I own and our property management has a sheet each unit fills out for upgrades they have had done.

I believe how its working is the tenant's insurance will pay the owner's insurance which will pay the building's insurance. The Inception of insurance payments haha.

Last time all this happened, I kept hearing that "original condition" term however since everything was original beforehand anyway, I didn't know any different.

My hope is that most units chose to upgrade, and that will put me at or close to the budget needed for new carpet and hardwood when they work out their "average" budgets.

What I don't quite understand is why this individual's insurance isn't just paying for everyone to return to original condition. That is not how it worked last time either though.

I also don't understand who is responsible for our insurance premium increases as a result of this now second claim in 2 years. IMO that should also come out of that tenant's pocket, not my condo fees.

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by JustinMCS
I am surprised that because of one unit's fault, your corporation insurance has to pay.

This should be the insurance of the unit that covers everyone else's expense or the unit owner pays the deductible of the corporation.

Also, you should be put back to pre flood condition. That is absoutely ridiculous.

I am on the board of the condo I own and our property management has a sheet each unit fills out for upgrades they have had done.
The condo's insurance will cover it and recover the losses from the unit owner responsible for the damages.

[ercchry]

i wouldnt accept their nonsense... do you have receipts still from the last time this happened? that should be sufficient i would think :dunno:

or contact your own insurance and get them to fight for you. that is why you pay them money, if you are not at fault. you wont have to pay

[Masked Bandit]

Generally speaking, yes you'll need to file a claim on your own policy for the difference (betterment & improvement) but I don't think this will increase your future premiums. I suspect you'll be out your deductible though. On a condo policy your deductible should be a maximum of $500.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
Generally speaking, yes you'll need to file a claim on your own policy for the difference (betterment & improvement) but I don't think this will increase your future premiums. I suspect you'll be out your deductible though. On a condo policy your deductible should be a maximum of $500.

Yes I believe it is $500.

Since I am no way at fault though, should the offending unit not be paying that deductible for me though, given that it was 100% their fault due to negligence? Similar to a not at fault car accident?

It's still possible that I am pleasantly surprised by the budget I am presented with, however I just want to figure out all my options just in case.

Last time this happened, I actually had more issues with the bottom of the barrel trades the restoration party sub-sub-sub contracted than I did with the flood itself.

If this was an "act of god" flood like the one in June, I would be far more understanding about average costs, deductibles, etc. however in this case it is clear who is 100% responsible and it was easily preventable.

[littledan]

when my condo flooded, it was also my neighbour that left a window open causing a pipe to burst and flood my master bedroom. Rather than wait for the crappy trade the insurance hired, I hired my own contractor. The insurance payout only paid about 50% the cost of my contractor but at least I had my place restored within 6 weeks. Those that waited for the insurance contractor had to wait up to 6 months. Ridiculous.