Thanks for the feedback. The insurance company claims that the coverage is adequate, yet their statement of the value of the property is far out of touch from what actual building costs are. I understand that the value of the land isn’t included in the cost of the structure, and that’s not what I’m talking about. In the instance that the house was destroyed, as in a fire, they say the structure’s value would be $X to rebuild. That X is their statement of the household property. According to the architect that I spoke with, based on average building costs, that not even half would be covered. So even with a margin of 20% they don’t come close. How can they be permitted to consistently undervalue property? Especially now a days when property values are all extremely easy to determine? Isnt that a deceptive practice on their part?

I’m all too familiar with how they assess depreciation. That is yet another scam. Even with replacement value coverage for personal property, they will wiggle complain about every detail.

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"