Some several years ago we had a hailstorm that did a lot of roof damage. While waiting for the insurance claim check there was another storm that also did damage.
At this point I had not had the damage repaired, but did subsequently. I didn’t think I could ethically file a new claim for damage to an already damaged roof that had not been repaired yet, so the thought didn’t even occur to me.
Sometime after that though, someone told me I should have filed another claim for the second storm. That sounded like something that could have verged on insurance fraud, so. . .
Would it? Something just didn’t seem right with the idea.
It wouldn’t be insurance fraud if you clearly explained what you posted above. Then the company can attempt to calculate the damage done by the second storm and compensate you for it.
Isn’t the claim going to be with the same insurance company? Won’t the second adjuster say something like, “I see a previous claim for storm-related roof damage. When did you have that work done and what was the condition of the car after the repair?”
The whole truth is a pretty good defense against charges of fraud.
The insurance company wants you to report, truthfully, every bit of damage that occurs when it occurs. They’ll sort out the sequence of damage events and repair events.
Is it necessary for the insurance company to sort out the sequence of events? Since both claims are with the same insurance company and both are for storm damage, does it matter much which ding was caused by which storm?
The significance of sequence is the difference between storm 1, then repair all damage, then storm 2 versus storm1, then storm 2, then repair all damage.
In the first case they’re going to pay twice. In the second case only once. They care about that difference. A lot.
They might even care about the damage per storm to the extent they can figure it out, even if they are only writing one check, because it may matter to them for actuarial analysis how much damage was caused by each event.
In the OP example, if the payout from the first storm was “replace the whole roof”, there is no need to place another claim (and I doubt the insurance company would pay out another claim if the roof had yet to have been replaced). If the first claim was for damage only, then I think a second claim is fully warranted.
I’m sure the insurance company wouldn’t object to you explaining the situation. You do have a certain time frame to get the work done, and they would probably send a second adjuster (with a copy of the report from the first) to determine if the damage was more extensive, thus allowing for a claim.
If the 2nd store did not do any additional damage then there will only check. But if there is any addition damage the you need to put in a 2nd claim. Call your insurance agent and explain the situation to them.
Did you folks read the OP? This was years ago. The damage has already been fixed. He’s just wondering if he could/should have filed a claim for the first storm, too.
I would have been worried about the opposite problem - the storms are two different events and thus would be subject to a separate deductible for each storm. By filing only a single claim and representing it as damage from a single storm, you avoided paying the second deductible.
I have seen this situation before when in the DC area, there were 3 hail storms in the same general area within 3 weeks with homeowners submitting thousands of claims. Without the benefit of a physical inspection before subsequent storms, we did not attempt to separate multiple losses to the same dwelling unless the homeowner could point put different areas of damage from different storms. Most were treated as a single occurrence.
This is my thought… did the repairs approved and paid in the first claim take care of the damage from the second storm too? If yes, then the insurance company met its obligations, to restore the car to previous condition. If no, then you should have submitted a claim for the difference. (I.e. we seem to be talking about cars - windshield broken by second storm so not included in original payment.)
That’s the key. The insurance company is obliged to put the insured item back to original condition. You pay pretty good dollars for that service. They are not obliged to simply pay you a prize every time you have an act of God visited upon you. (that’s what injury lawyers are for)
Of course if you inform them of the total circumstances and the adjuster is in a generous mood or they don’t read their mail - sucks to be them…
Once they’ve paid you for the first repair, there is no obligation for you to hurry and effect that repair. However, any future event would start from “how much damage did this actual event do?”
(Reminds me of the argument I had with an insurance salesman. I told him that a fellow who had “loss of income” insurance PLUS “pay your payments if you are off work” insurance on car loan and mortgage was double-dipping. Since he sold those products, he argued not. We had a few people in our large company who were taking advantage of this sort of option, back in the 1980’s - making more money being injured than they did working. Those guys hated it when the company came up with options like “come back to work, we can find painting or garbage collection tasks…”)
I was in a car accident years ago. The adjuster was looking over the vehicle ad called me with questions about slight damage to an area that he couldn’t attribute to the accident.
I explained that I’d hit a deer and didn’t bother reporting it since the damage was minor and I planned to leave it that way.
They fixed the vehicle and my insurance was cancelled because of excessive claims.