ADJUSTING TODAY HOME PAGE
ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL

Advocating for the policyholder by valuing, documenting and settling their property damage claims.


Select a back issue of Adjusting Today
3042 - Difference in Conditions Coverage —
3041 - Earthquake Insurance:
3040 - Coinsurance/Insurance to Value Revisited:
3039 - Insurance Coverage For Collapse
3038 - Increased Cost of Construction Coverage
3037 - Builder's Risk Insurance:
3036 - Margin Clauses Making Agreed Value Options Extinct!
3035 - Equipment Breakdown Insurance:
3034 - Soft Cost or Delay in Opening:
3033 - Flood
3032 - Overhead & Profit:
3031 - The Effect of Sale of a Commercial Property on a Pending Insurance Claim
3030 - Pair, Set and Match: Replacement of Undamaged Hotel Furnishings
3029 - The Length of the Road Back from Disaster
3028 - How to Make the Most of an Underinsured Loss
3027 - Hurricanes and Windstorm Coverage
3026 - Functional Replacement Cost
3025 - Valuable Papers and Records
3023 - Salvage
3022 - Concurrent Causation
3021 - Agreed Value Clause
3020 - Business Income Insurance Q&A
3017 - Property Insurance Claims:
3016 - Disaster Recovery Planning
3015 - Multi-Family Complexes: (Apartment and Condo)
3015 - Hail Damage Can Create Difficult Insurance Claims
3013 - Valuing Business Income Exposures:
3012 - Proving an Insured Loss: Policyholders Need Experts Too
3011 - Disasters Raising Questions of Insurance Adequacy
3010 - Debris Removal and Pollution Damage
3009 - Ordinance or Law Coverage:
3008 - Business Income Insurance
3007 - Subrogation:
3006 - The Valuation Gap:
3005 - Sometimes It's What the Policy Doesn't Say That Counts!
3004 - Expecting the Unexpected Part of the Unexpected
3003 - Risk Assessment: Evaluating Coverage from a Loss Perspective
3002 - The Extended Period of Indemnity Endorsement
3002 - Coinsurance
2003 - E-Edition: Actual Cash Value Depreciation Deduction
2002 - E-Edition: Contingent Business Interruption Issues Continue
2001 - E-Edition: Japan Earthquake a Wake-Up Call for Contingent BI
Email Icon PDF Icon Bookmark and Share

The Replacement Cost Claim: It's Just Like Any Other, or Is It?

Sometimes It's What the Policy Doesn't Say That Counts!

Page 6 of  12     Previous   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12    Next  View issue on one page

Photo
Replacement cost coverage is designed to protect a policyholder who has an insured loss from having a reduced financial recovery due to depreciation of the damaged property. Replacement cost coverage will pay the costs to repair or replace damaged property by a covered cause of loss without a deduction for depreciation.

For a number of years, replacement cost was provided on a guaranteed basis — meaning that if the replacement costs exceeded the limits, the company would pay. Today there are a few companies that still offer homeowners policies and business owners policies with replacement cost on a guaranteed basis. The majority offer replacement costs on an extended basis that restricts the amount the company will pay to 25 percent to 50 percent above the policy limit.

While the coverage seems to contradict the principle of indemnity — by enriching rather than restoring — most professionals in our business understand that correctly administered replacement cost coverage works to the advantage of both the insured and the insurer. Less established, however, is understanding how to handle replacement cost adjustments. Some of this lack of
understanding is due to the fact that the coverage is relatively vague.

The term "replacement cost" is not defined under the definitions of standard commercial property and homeowners insurance policies.1 Words not defined within the policy are interpreted by their ordinary,
plain and usual meaning. Courts have ruled that policy language should be interpreted in the manner that an average person would understand it.2

Misconceptions and ambiguities exist. The intent of this article is to clarify some of them — by discussing replacement cost coverage from a claims perspective!

Enrichment vs. Restoration
The principle of indemnity as applied to insurance holds "the policy should not confer a benefit greater in value than the loss suffered by the insured."3 It is to restore the insured to the conditions they were in prior
to the loss. Since damaged property can most often only be replaced with new, one might feel that an insured actually benefits by getting new property in place of old. It was out of this concern — to be consistent with the indemnity requirement — that the concept of depreciation was established.4
Replacement cost coverage does
not unjustly enrich the policyholder for three important reasons. First,
the loss is fortuitous to the insured, thus neither foreseen by nor deliberately caused by the insured. Second, prior to the loss the
property was providing a functional service for the insured and by replacing the item, the insured is being returned to the same position. Third, the insurer is compensated
for the additional coverage granted because premiums are based on the higher replacement cost values rather than the lower actual cash values.

Please bear in mind that in the examples cited, the policy's limit
of liability is always the maximum
level of recovery for the insured.
Also note that we have not
considered "guaranteed replacement value," which may permit a recovery that exceeds the stated limit of liability.

180 Day Requirement
A common misconception involving replacement cost coverage is that the insured has 180 days to make repairs. This is not the case! When a loss occurs the insured can request a payment based on the actual cash value (ACV) and still retain the option of replacement cost. To keep the

Subscribe to Adjusting Today
Contact the Editor
Request Back Issues
Contact Adjusters International
ADJUSTINGTODAY.COM
ADJUSTERSINTERNATIONAL.COM

Privacy Policy