Insurance Co., 4th Cir., 12F 2d 880; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Frank, Nev., 452 P. 2d 919; Firemen’s Insurance Co. v. Houle, N.H., 69 A. 2d 696; Hamilton County Mut. Fire Insurance Co. v. Rosenbaum, Ohio, 171 NE 345; New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co. v. Murray, 7th Cir., 105 F 2d 212; Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. Peters, Texas, 379 SW 2d 946; Hamburg-Bremen Fire Insurance Co. v. Garlington, Texas, 18 SW 337; Ollie v. Security Mutual Underwriters, 4th Cir., 235 F. 2d 932; Monteleone v. Royal Insurance Co., La., 18 So. 472; Security Insurance Co. v. Rosenberg, Ky., 12 SW 2d 688.
The insurance contract is meant to indemnify and if restoration of the building is forbidden, then the policyholder has suffered a total loss. The cases involve both situations where a policyholder is ordered to demolish the building or modify to meet updated building codes, and where a policyholder is simply required to demolish. You should be warned however, that although it is proper to claim total loss under these circumstances, many insurance companies resist claims of this type. Some adjusters interpret the policy literally without considering court interpretation.
Constructive Total Loss, when one exists. This is one example of a great many where it is essential for policyholders to have authority to file a “claim” for an amount of loss that does not agree with the insurance company. Although we have lost that right, the word “claim” has been removed from many of our insurance policies: www.disasterprepared.net/postmortem.html … our presence can still be made known. And there is VAST hope.
Responses to 'Dialogue About Victims'