Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudoreality
Do you have a source for that? The article post here states the house was valued at $580,000 and
"Lech's attorney told the Post that his home insurance company paid him $345,000 for the damage but that amount did not come close to covering additional costs related to personal property damage, demolishing and rebuilding the home and taking out a new mortgage on the new house."
There is a lot of details missing here. Why would the insurance company only pay $345,000?
|
I wondered a bit about that too. In the article though, he says that his insurance was willing to replace the house, but not the property inside of it. I wonder if that's a large chunk of it.
It also notes that didn't come close to 'demolishing and rebuilding, and taking out a mortage'. Which are expensive things to do, that I can't see insurance covering in the first place, unless you have really good insurance.
I can see this as a scenario. His house that he's renting to his kid gets shot up. His insurance company feels he can repair the house. He decides he wants to go after the City/police to get the house he's always wanted, so looks to demolishing and replacing his house, instead of repairing it. Insurance coughs up what house (not contents) are worth to repair, not replace. He tries to sue and fails. Now he's stuck, so it's media time.