The Palm Beach Post

Denial of Hurricane Damage Claims

- David Spicer, Esq. David Spicer is the founding member of the Law Offices of Spicer & Chambers, P.A. and is a Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, practicing since 1980.

Hurricane Irma wreaked havoc for homeowners throughout South Florida. For many, it was the first occasion to make an insurance claim. This was the situation for a recent homeowner who made a claim with his insurance company for roof damage. His insurance company sent an adjuster to inspect the damage, which included missing shingles in several areas.

A few weeks after the inspection, the insurance company denied the claim, explaining that the damage observed did not exceed the $5,000 deductible. The insurer told the homeowner that some damage was observed, but minor repair work to replace the missing shingles was all the damage warranted.

The homeowner contacted an attorney. He believed there was more damage to his roof, and the insurance company’s denial did not seem right. He was also informed by several roofing contractor­s that the cost to properly fix his roof was more than $20,000.

He soon learned that law firms such as Spicer & Chambers, P.A., would investigat­e his claim, let him know what his options were, and represent him at no out-of-pocket cost. This is possible because, in many situations, Florida Statute 627.428 requires the insurance company to pay for an insured’s attorney’s fees.

Ultimately, it was determined that his roof damage was substantia­l, and that to properly restore his property would necessitat­e the entire roof be replaced. Further, the homeowner learned that a partial shingle replacemen­t would not be sufficient because Florida Statute 626.9744 requires the insurance company to cover the cost of matching any replaced shingles with materials that match adjoining portions of the roof. His shingles were old — and new ones wouldn’t match.

He also learned specific building code requiremen­ts must be met when repairs are made to the roof. Because of these statutes and code provisions, the insurance company was responsibl­e for paying for the entire replacemen­t cost of the entire roof, not just the specific shingles they had told the homeowner could be replaced.

With a law firm’s involvemen­t, the insurance company reversed its denial and agreed to pay for the client’s new roof. The insurance company also paid the client’s attorney’s fees and costs.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States