acf-code-field
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/propertyinsuranc/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114The International Roofing Expo<\/a> in Las Vegas finished on Thursday. Roofers were asking me all kinds of questions. For example, they asked why insurance company pricing can be so low, could insurance companies ask for releases from their customers if the insurance company gave up its right to repair, and what they could do about mortgage companies holding onto their money after repairs were complete. The most controversial question was why Florida public adjusters supported Florida legislation that restricted roofers from being able to solicit business. I will let public adjuster leaders from FAPIA<\/a> answer the last question.<\/p>\n Insurance educator\u00a0Bill Wilson<\/a> posed the question to this post in his blog. In, Hail Damage Dilemma, Wilson noted a change in policy language by some insurers which specially applies to hail and windstorm damage<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n Suit Against Us<\/em><\/p>\n \u2026A claim for a loss resulting from the peril of windstorm or hail must be reported to us or our agent within 6 months of the loss event, and any suit arising there from must be brought within one year after the loss or damage occurs\u2026.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The interesting part of this language is that the notice of loss provision has been added to the \u201csuit against us\u201d portion of the policy. I urge readers of this blog to read Wilson\u2019s post and subscribe to his blog<\/a>. It is very informative, and he noted:<\/p>\n Thirty years ago, ISO reflected this manifestation theory in their HO forms when a plumbing \u2018repeated seepage and leakage\u2019 water damage exclusion was removed from the forms. Under current ISO forms, as long as water damage is hidden from sight, there is coverage as long as discovered damage is promptly reported. ISO forms now rely on the Neglect exclusion if prompt reporting doesn\u2019t happen. Again, this appears to be the most equitable approach for unsophisticated property owners, though many (probably most) insurers using ISO HO forms include a \u2018repeated seepage or leakage\u2019 type exclusionary endorsement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n