This document was created because when a building is ordered demolished that has been involved in a disaster, it is unconscionable that disaster survivors are paid for partial loss when they have lost everything and are entitled to total loss. And, merely because no one told them what they really had coming and how to get it.This applies in this day and age, to property in every community where fire, hurricane, earthquake, tornado, flood or other disaster happen, and should be of concern to all insurance policyholders. I hope you will agree when you see how the public is affected.
Braga____________________________The building dept. in my town is pressuring me to tear down what remains of my fire-damaged home but I don’t want to yet. I’m still dealing with my insurance company. Has anyone else had a similar problem?____________________________When a building is ordered demolished by a building inspector because of a fire or other insured peril, the insurance company is liable for the whole loss and cannot say part of the loss is excluded because it was caused by enforcement of a city ordinance: Metropolitan Mutual Fire v. Carmen Holding Co., 220 A 2d 778 De., 1966.
At first glance this appears to be a contradiction, but the above quoted clause applies to partial losses and not total losses. If it is determined that the loss is total, the clause can never come into play: A. H. Jacobson Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., D.C. Minn., 83 F. Supp. 674; Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., v. Rochester German Insurance Co., Minn., 88 NW 265; Feinbloom v. Camden Fire Insurance Ass’n., N.J., 149 A 2d 616; Netherlands Insurance Co. v. Fowler, Fla., 181 So., 2d 692; Larkin v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., Minn., 83 NW 409; Rutherford v.
Responses to 'Dialogue About Victims'