House insurance - roof depreciation

[dansmith11]

hey guys,

anyone have experience with this BS?

i have some fairly extensive hail damage on my house, my insurance company sent an adjuster, did their estimate, and then sent me the estimate stating they would only be paying 50% of the cost of the roof due to a depreciation clause.

now there is nothing in my policy documents that states anything about this.

the closest i can find is a line that says "this policy contains a clause that may limit the amount payable"

is this even legal? they write in a clause that basically says they can make up any clause they want at any time without telling me?

i was never informed of this clause, and its not written anywhere in my documents.

do i have any recourse here?

[J-hop]

Sorry I can't offer you information on recourse but the depreciation of shingles/roof I think is pretty standard (I know it's in my policy somewhere as I've had this dicussion with them.

I think it stemmed from too many people with 20 year old curling shingles who waited for good hail storms to claim the damage was a result of hail and not their worn out shingles giving out.

[nytrydr89]

my parents are having the same issue they are going through a claim with INTACT and there is a similar clause. the estimate was around $16,000 by the time they pay there deductible and the depreciation they will have to cover $10,000 of the claim and INTACT the other $6000. its a pain in the ass.

[codetrap]

.

[sputnik]

It might be a hard pill to swallow, but after a couple of hail claims many risk being dropped by their insurance companies or have their premiums skyrocket.

A friend of mine had minor hail claims in Airdrie within 5 years and then got a major hail claim a couple of years ago (roof/siding/windows/gutters). His insurance company dropped his policy and said that he would reapply at quadruple his previous rates.

He took the cash from the third claim added an extra $24,000 now has top of the line rubber shingles, windows, Hardie siding and gutter guards.

With the upgrades he convinced his insurance company to lower his premiums back to normal but still has a $5000 deductible.

Moral of the story. Getting a new roof from an insurance claim can cost you money later on.

[Aaaaaron]

My insurance has a clause where 5 years or newer the roof is 100% covered, then it decreases every year after.

[blitz]

Originally posted by codetrap
I have heard of this clause a few times now. Honestly, it makes sense though. You wouldn't expect to get a brand new car if you were insuring an 86 Honda.

But you can use the payout for your 86 Honda to by another 86 Honda, but you can't buy a used roof.

[ercchry]

Parents had similar issues after a huge storm at the lake (tree fell on the roof)... Enough haggling later and the entire roof got covered. It's always a game, like buying a new car

[codetrap]

.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by blitz


But you can use the payout for your 86 Honda to by another 86 Honda, but you can't buy a used roof.

Also in that line, just because you drive a 10 year old A8, doesn't mean you get $100K when you total it.

I think it's rare that a Calgary shingle roof actually lasted more than the expected life anyway.

[dansmith11]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Also in that line, just because you drive a 10 year old A8, doesn't mean you get $100K when you total it.

I think it's rare that a Calgary shingle roof actually lasted more than the expected life anyway.

but i also dont pay the same amount to insure a 10 year old A8 vs a brand new one. my premiums go down as the value of the car goes down. where my house insurance, i'm paying to insure the full value of the house. if they arent actually covering the full value, my premiums should decrease accordingly.

[suntan]

Not anymore you aren't.

Yeah I hate that fucking rider.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by dansmith11


but i also dont pay the same amount to insure a 10 year old A8 vs a brand new one. my premiums go down as the value of the car goes down. where my house insurance, i'm paying to insure the full value of the house. if they arent actually covering the full value, my premiums should decrease accordingly.

Let me put it another way...

Windshield used to be part of any coverage and now it's extra.

I see roof and flood portion of policy goes the same way for houses if these disasters keep up with the frequency.

If you dont like this, government will probably has to intervene and usually it means everyone has to pay more.

As for not receiving updated documents, I had all policy updates from my insurer but I don't have to sign for them. So I know. May be you can play the didn't get the memo card and see if the will cover it all this one time?


And to stay in the car theme, I just saved $200/year switching to a car that is $50K more valuable just because of a drop in risk class.

Unfortunately for houses, to only way to change risk class is moving out of Southern Alberta. I have to say, insurance companies should promote more prevention tactic like hail proof building codes or at least give people who are proactive a discount or something. It's 2016, why is shingle still a thing, especially for those McMansions.

[Masked Bandit]

OP, are you with Intact or someone else?

Intact was (to my knowledge) the first company to implement the roof depreciation. I can't speak for all insurance companies but I know Intact has the endorsement listed right on the coverage page. I think the phrase is "roof limitation endorsement" or something like that. They've been using this for two or three years now. At the moment they are the only company we deal with that has it but I know there are a handful of others in the industry who have adopted the same approach (Wawanesa maybe???).

TBH I'm surprised more companies haven't got on board yet because an asphalt shingle roof will definitely NOT last the lifetime of the house, it is a wearable item just like tires or brakes on your car. I suspect within a few years the depreciation clause will be industry standard.

[dansmith11]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
OP, are you with Intact or someone else?

Intact was (to my knowledge) the first company to implement the roof depreciation. I can't speak for all insurance companies but I know Intact has the endorsement listed right on the coverage page. I think the phrase is "roof limitation endorsement" or something like that. They've been using this for two or three years now. At the moment they are the only company we deal with that has it but I know there are a handful of others in the industry who have adopted the same approach (Wawanesa maybe???).

TBH I'm surprised more companies haven't got on board yet because an asphalt shingle roof will definitely NOT last the lifetime of the house, it is a wearable item just like tires or brakes on your car. I suspect within a few years the depreciation clause will be industry standard.

my application and all my documents say novex on them.. but my quote came back from intact.. are they the same company? or does novex sub-contract home insurance to impact or something?

none of the documents i have say intact, or roof limitation endorsement on them. the first i heard of it was a pdf that was sent to me along with the appraisal quote that describes the roof depreciation policy.

i understand the logic behind it, my issue is that I was never told about it, and as far as i can see, it isn't listed anywhere in my documentation. if I knew what i was getting for coverage it would be different. this seems to be them just deciding to change things without my knowledge. that the part that doesn't seem right to me.

[speedog]

Originally posted by dansmith11


my application and all my documents say novex on them.. but my quote came back from intact.. are they the same company? or does novex sub-contract home insurance to impact or something?

none of the documents i have say intact, or roof limitation endorsement on them. the first i heard of it was a pdf that was sent to me along with the appraisal quote that describes the roof depreciation policy.

i understand the logic behind it, my issue is that I was never told about it, and as far as i can see, it isn't listed anywhere in my documentation. if I knew what i was getting for coverage it would be different. this seems to be them just deciding to change things without my knowledge. that the part that doesn't seem right to me.

Appears that Novex is under the umbrella of Intact Financial Corporation - link.

[codetrap]

.

[rx7boi]

Originally posted by dansmith11

my premiums go down as the value of the car goes down.

Since when does this happen?

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by rx7boi


Since when does this happen?

It doesn't. Because cars are more about claim rate than book value.

That's why a 10 year old Civic cost more to insure than a new C class.

[dansmith11]

Originally posted by Xtrema


It doesn't. Because cars are more about claim rate than book value.

That's why a 10 year old Civic cost more to insure than a new C class.

maybe i'm wrong.. but in my experience all my old cars have been cheaper to insure than my new ones. liability is about the same.. but theft/collision is definitely cheaper on a car that's worth less money.

and i'd have to go back and check but im pretty sure i pay less for collision/theft coverage on my 2008 civic now than i did when it was brand new

there are exceptions i think.. like if the vehicle is on one of those most stolen lists, or if it's seen as a high risk vehicle.. ie. a RHD supra or something.