Insurance Companies versus The International Residential Code and City Building Officials

Most homeowners have "code upgrade" in their policy. You can find out by looking in the  "Building and Personal Property Coverage Form" or something like that. I am not an insurance adjuster but I've seen as many or more claims as anyone over the decades. This is the rub: building codes change and homes don't magically upgrade.

Now a disaster hits and your home is several years old. The codes have changed, you have to rebuild, but you have to rebuild better. Period. Code is law. If you have code upgrade then you should be okay, right? No, if you have State Farm. They want to know if the codes are enforced and they know most cities will answer that. It's like asking which laws I can break. no, it is exactly like that.

We've had several customers where we discovered the codes were not met, verified they had code upgrade and State Farm either said that if what I said was true they'd pay it or go ahead and we'll let you know. To finish the job we had to replace the decking on the homes. State Farm has copies of the code, has verified that it is code but won't pay because they say it might not be enforced.  If we hadn't replaced the decking the homeowner might have have had the entire roof and deck red tagged. Or years later when the home was being sold the inspector might have failed it causing a whole roof and deck system to be replace. The minimum would have been the roof started to leak and State Farm would not have paid for the damage because it was defective workmanship and not a sudden catastrophic loss. Great for State Farm because they could collect premiums on a roof they wouldn't pay for.

I've head that since a huge hailstorm hit Amarillo, which has some stricter building codes, especially for a roof, that State Farm Insurance is sending a liaison to reason with the building department. Good luck with those good ole boys. They may talk slow but they ain't stupid.

To place the word "enforced" of the word "code" is an attempt at deception. Here's some awesome reasoning from a wise modern philosopher in  "The Semantic Deception of Dialectical Theses"

"Before we begin examining specific damages, let us develop an appreciation for what is being sought out, as defined by the title of this article. What is, “the semantic deception of dialectical theses?” Everyone knows that a “deception” is a “lie,” so this is as good place a place as any to start our discussions. It isn't always the case that there is a “liar” telling us a “lie” when we are being deceived. A lie is a falsehood, but it is stated. An omission of information could be just as damaging and is still a deception, although not a lie. However, to deceive, to “create a deception” does involve work. Somebody or some thing has to “do something” to deliberately cause you to be deceived. So, stated or not, any deceptiveness we are about to discuss, by the rules of existence and definition, must be intentional. We will be well served by remembering this. You cannot be deceived by erroneous information that occurred “by accident,” this is simply you deceiving yourself with erroneous information. For it to be deception, there must someone doing the deceiving.......

 

..... The goal in our understanding of the semantic deception is twofold: First, we must know that abstract considerations are matters of opinion and that definitions, when reduced properly, should not end up contradictory. Now, let's remember that “a deception” requires a “deceiver.” So if we have a semantic deception, we have a message that is intentionally false, wrong and dangerous, in it's meaning." 

 

In other words, I think they are not paying their bills and living up to their contract. 

Jon Alan Wright

Jon Wright Roofing, Siding, and Windows

1915 Peters Rd., Suite 310

Irving, TX 75061

972.251.1818 Office

214.718.3748 Cell

972.554.8090 Fax

jonwright@jonwrightroofing.com

www.jonwrightroofing.com