TRUMAN HOMES leaves home owner on their own...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by polak

I have a deductible to pay for my insurance. I need to use my insurance to cover the deductible on the buildings insurance.

So basically here is what could happen. You pay the deductible and the insurer will take care of the damages. If they think that Truman is liable they will subrogate (or attempt to) for the damages. Your deductible is part of that. So in the event that they recover the damages you would get that money back. If they were to admit liability sooner, the deductible could be waived.

I wouldn't plan on spending that money for Christmas or whatever because if Truman isn't willing to admit liability, it will drag on. Theoretically though, that is how things will work.

Of course if the insurer looks at things and doesn't think that they can go against Truman or their insurer for the damages, then they fix what is covered and you pay the deductible.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

I have a deductible to pay for my insurance. I need to use my insurance to cover the deductible on the buildings insurance.

Why are you paying the deductible for the Condo? Do the bylaws say you need to pay? Most bylaws require the unit owner to pay if the were negligent and caused the loss. Now you SAY you didn't stand in the sink ( ) so I struggle to find the negligence on your part.

The condo corp should have monies set aside to pay for this type of things.

If you have to pay a deducible on your unit owner policy to pay the Condo Corp policy deductible, I would behaving a conversation with your adjuster about the waiving of the deductible, as this was a "no fault" property claim. They can recover the monies from Truman or Truman's insurer.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Why are you paying the deductible for the Condo? Do the bylaws say you need to pay? Most bylaws require the unit owner to pay if the were negligent and caused the loss. Now you SAY you didn't stand in the sink ( ) so I struggle to find the negligence on your part.

The condo corp should have monies set aside to pay for this type of things.

If you have to pay a deducible on your unit owner policy to pay the Condo Corp policy deductible, I would behaving a conversation with your adjuster about the waiving of the deductible, as this was a "no fault" property claim. They can recover the monies from Truman or Truman's insurer.

I'm sure they're not waiving the deductible for the loss until they're sure that Truman is (a) liable or (b) admits liability. That's pretty much standard procedure.

[polak]

Yeah from what I understood, I should keep my claim open until that's waived.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

What other options does he have?

Ignored in his quest, on page 4 my comment about the Better Business Bureau is a good one. Once I had an issue with a plumber involving a very similar story as polaks, except I went to the BBB.

Companies really don't like that in my experience. My issue was resolved immediately.

Clearly the best course is for him to breed with the Truman Home reps, so that as generations pass, their differences can be set aside.

[Madman]

Any update from the sink manufacturer?

Also, as suggested earlier, you need to talk with the counter top installers, they are the ones who typically attach the sink.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Why are you paying the deductible for the Condo? Do the bylaws say you need to pay? Most bylaws require the unit owner to pay if the were negligent and caused the loss. Now you SAY you didn't stand in the sink ( ) so I struggle to find the negligence on your part.

The condo corp should have monies set aside to pay for this type of things.

If you have to pay a deducible on your unit owner policy to pay the Condo Corp policy deductible, I would behaving a conversation with your adjuster about the waiving of the deductible, as this was a "no fault" property claim. They can recover the monies from Truman or Truman's insurer.

If the damage stemmed from your incident your insurance has to cover the loss. This would be no different than your house burning down and the neighbors on either side sustaining damage. Your insurance pays their deductibles.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm sure they're not waiving the deductible for the loss until they're sure that Truman is (a) liable or (b) admits liability. That's pretty much standard procedure.

Obviously, I was talking end goal.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by speede5

If the damage stemmed from your incident your insurance has to cover the loss. This would be no different than your house burning down and the neighbors on either side sustaining damage. Your insurance pays their deductibles.

No, it is different.

The insurance set up in Condo's vs stand alone homes is different.

In your example there are 3 sets of property owners, owning 3 different properties.

The application of the deducible against the unit owner is usually set out in the bylaws. Bylaws are all different, but the one thing they all generally have common is that they set out when the unit owner is responsible for the payment of the Condo Corp's deductible. They often say that is the unit owner is responsible for the damage/loss the Condo Corp's deductible is applied against the unit owner.

This is a loss which happened without any negligence on Polak's behalf, so the, pending the wording of the bylaws he might not be responsible for the deductible. I suspect, and my experience is, the property management company and/or the condo board are just telling Polak he has to pay. If I was him I would ask to be shown in the bylaws.

This is but another example of why I would never buy a Condo again.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I only know what they told me. I didn't see it for myself.

I know when I was house shopping back in August, we did a couple of home inspections on houses that we ended up not buying. One of them was a newer house (built in 2013). The home inspector pointed out some strange plumbing issues. The one that stood out to me the most was plumbing in the basement that literally went nowhere. The home inspector, who himself used to be a builder, couldn't explain it. He said it wasn't a rough-in for anything that he could tell. It was just as if they started going one way a realized they were going the wrong way and left the other piping in place.

I know. Wasn't attacking you ... just giving my thoughts.

Regarding the above to me that wouldn't be really a big issue and more of a case of the home inspector pointing out the obvious. At least the issue was rectified or it was left there as an easy start option for a later add on.

The bolded part I have a problem with. These guys all pretty much claim to be ex builders. Question is, for how long, what did you do, what trades are you certified in and most importantly why aren't they still doing it?
Is being a home inspector more lucrative than being a builder?

Maybe I'm still a bit jaded and bitter at the last one I used pointing out crayon marks on the wall or telling me that the toilets flushed ok. I'm willing to bet that checking under the sink for installation (straps etc) is beyond their scope and they're more focused on obvious things as rusting at the bottom of very old sinks.

Polak, don't know if it has been asked but what does your home inspection say with reference to your sink and was it an independent inspector or one through Truman or your realtor?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

No, it is different.

The insurance set up in Condo's vs stand alone homes is different.

In your example there are 3 sets of property owners, owning 3 different properties.

The application of the deducible against the unit owner is usually set out in the bylaws. Bylaws are all different, but the one thing they all generally have common is that they set out when the unit owner is responsible for the payment of the Condo Corp's deductible. They often say that is the unit owner is responsible for the damage/loss the Condo Corp's deductible is applied against the unit owner.

This is a loss which happened without any negligence on Polak's behalf, so the, pending the wording of the bylaws he might not be responsible for the deductible. I suspect, and my experience is, the property management company and/or the condo board are just telling Polak he has to pay. If I was him I would ask to be shown in the bylaws.

This is but another example of why I would never buy a Condo again.

That's not really how fault and negligence work when it comes to condo insurance.

Far as the condo board and prop manager are concerned, this was polak's "fault". It would be his responsibility to keep his things in good working order. Their insurance may go after a third party if they think negligence was responsible for them having to payout but something polak owns did damage to someone else's property. That means he's responsible. Sadly the condo and their insurance aren't likely to care about crappy luck. I guess it is possible they may pay it on his behalf in any situation where they can't prove negligence on his part, but I highly doubt it. That would be unlike any condo I've ever seen.

Now if the siding was installed incorrectly and rainfall leaked into polak's unit and ruined his floor and his below neighbor's roof, then the board (really all homeowners since it is their money), would pay the deductible.

It really isn't much different than the example you quoted. There's just more people involved. In fact, since the responsibility of the cost gets spread out, you could argue the condo owner is better off than the homeowner, who would be solely responsible. And he gets the benefit of the prop management company to help sort everything out. If they suck, then that's the board's fault and by extension partly polak's fault for not getting involved in running his board (I'm not making any assumptions about either polak, the board, or the prop mgr, just saying that's a possibility).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

That's not really how fault and negligence work when it comes to condo insurance.

Far as the condo board and prop manager are concerned, this was polak's "fault". It would be his responsibility to keep his things in good working order. Their insurance may go after a third party if they think negligence was responsible for them having to payout but something polak owns did damage to someone else's property. That means he's responsible. Sadly the condo and their insurance aren't likely to care about crappy luck.

You are wrong.

I might agree if you are talking about something that requires ongoing maintenance and inspection or is Polak altered something. For example, if Polak changed out his kitchen tape, and did it incorrectly. The tap then released and caused this damage. That is on Polak.

I am unclear on what type of ongoing maintenance a kitchen sink needs. I have never check to make sure mine wasn't falling out.

Now if the siding sink was installed incorrectly and rainfall water leaked into polak's unit and ruined his floor and his below neighbor's roof, then the board (really all homeowners since it is their money), would pay the deductible.

Fixed your post.

It really isn't much different than the example you quoted. There's just more people involved. In fact, since the responsibility of the cost gets spread out, you could argue the condo owner is better off than the homeowner, who would be solely responsible. And he gets the benefit of the prop management company to help sort everything out. If they suck, then that's the board's fault and by extension partly polak's fault for not getting involved in running his board (I'm not making any assumptions about either polak, the board, or the prop mgr, just saying that's a possibility).

[puffnstuff]

Polak have you talked to a few of the neighbours yet and asked, or looked at, their sinks and how they are installed? They might want to stand in their sink too.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Fixed your post.

Uhh, the sink is not common property like the exterior of the building is.

That alone shows that you are confused as to how insurance for a condo works.

The sink is in polak's unit. It belongs to him. He is responsible for it.

Again, to be clear, I'm not blaming polak. I'm talking about insurance purposes only. Clearly there was some negligence by Truman. But it is a matter of polak proving it and Truman being required to fix it. Based on the existing situation, I think it is clear they are saying too bad, since he's past warranty.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Uhh, the sink is not common property.

That alone shows that you are confused as to how insurance for a condo works.

The sink is in polak's unit. It belongs to him. He is responsible for it.

Again, to be clear, I'm not blaming polak. I'm talking about insurance purposes only. Clearly there was some negligence by Truman. But it is a matter of polak proving it and Truman being required to fix it. Based on the existing situation, I think it is clear they are saying too bad, since he's past warranty.

If the building burns are you telling me that the claims is paid as thus:

Common Property: exterior walls/roof Condo Corp Insurer
Individual Unit: floors, interior walls, ceiling, cupboards, etc Each unit owners insurance policy

Again, the bylaws will speak to the application of the deductible. It is very common that Condo Boards and/or property management companies try to shove the deductible back on unit owners.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If the building burns are you telling me that the claims is paid as thus:

Common Property: exterior walls/roof Condo Corp Insurer
Individual Unit: floors, interior walls, ceiling, cupboards, etc Each unit owners insurance policy

Again, the bylaws will speak to the application of the deductible. It is very common that Condo Boards and/or property management companies try to shove the deductible back on unit owners.

In truth the distribution is a little more murky than that. The individual unit isn't responsible for the building (floors, walls, etc.) but they are for upgrades. So for example you have a building full of carpet, but the unit owner installed hardwood. The building insurer will pay to have carpet reinstalled, and the condo owner will have his unit coverage for tenants upgrades.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Uhh, the sink is not common property like the exterior of the building is.

That alone shows that you are confused as to how insurance for a condo works.

The sink is in polak's unit. It belongs to him. He is responsible for it.

Again, to be clear, I'm not blaming polak. I'm talking about insurance purposes only. Clearly there was some negligence by Truman. But it is a matter of polak proving it and Truman being required to fix it. Based on the existing situation, I think it is clear they are saying too bad, since he's past warranty.

This isn't necessarily true. Unless it was an addition or betterment, most new condos include cabinets, sinks, flooring, and walls as part of the insured portion of the Corporation. Just went through this with my insurance, it is stated in the bylaws or each condo Corporation an varies. For example, my original appliances are insured under the Corporation's policy, not my own. Any betterments are insured under the Corporation if I have explicitly told the board that I have added them.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

In truth the distribution is a little more murky than that. The individual unit isn't responsible for the building (floors, walls, etc.) but they are for upgrades. So for example you have a building full of carpet, but the unit owner installed hardwood. The building insurer will pay to have carpet reinstalled, and the condo owner will have his unit coverage for tenants upgrades.

But Cecil said.......he knows man, he knows.

And when you sell the costs of those upgrades are passed onto the new owner.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Leondros

This isn't necessarily true. Unless it was an addition or betterment, most new condos include cabinets, sinks, flooring, and walls as part of the insured portion of the Corporation. Just went through this with my insurance, it is stated in the bylaws or each condo Corporation an varies. For example, my original appliances are insured under the Corporation's policy, not my own. Any betterments are insured under the Corporation if I have explicitly told the board that I have added them.

It's basically everything that would be left behind if you sold, or forming the building that is under the condo corp. Appliances are a grey area and can be under the condo as you say, or considered contents. Here for Polak the condo policy will respond because the damages are to things that are part of the building and not specifically his property or contents.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Leondros

This isn't necessarily true. Unless it was an addition or betterment, most new condos include cabinets, sinks, flooring, and walls as part of the insured portion of the Corporation. Just went through this with my insurance, it is stated in the bylaws or each condo Corporation an varies. For example, my original appliances are insured under the Corporation's policy, not my own. Any betterments are insured under the Corporation if I have explicitly told the board that I have added them.

Right.

But in my experience that doesn't automatically mean that the condo pays the deductible.