Few things are more frightening than watching water pour through your home. A burst pipe during extreme cold doesn’t just damage walls and ceilings—it instantly
After a house fire, early decisions can have a lasting impact on the outcome of an insurance claim. Homeowners should prioritize a thorough investigation and inspection of the property, as fire, smoke, heat, and water damage often extend well beyond what is immediately visible.
Understanding Additional Living Expense coverage is also critical, as approvals and reimbursements can be delayed or disputed without proper documentation. Just as important, damaged or water-logged personal property should not be discarded without written authorization, since doing so can jeopardize the ability to recover for contents losses. Working with experienced professionals can help avoid common pitfalls.
Contact Green Public Insurance Adjusting for assistance with preparing a detailed contents inventory, which can significantly improve documentation and help maximize potential recovery under the policy.
Many policyholders are surprised when their first insurance payment falls far short of repair costs. This often stems from the difference between Actual Cash Value (ACV), which deducts depreciation, and Replacement Cost Value (RCV), which reflects the cost to replace damaged property. Insurers commonly issue ACV first and withhold depreciation until repairs are completed, placing a financial burden on property owners. When depreciation is overstated, damage is under-scoped, or deadlines are missed, policyholders may never recover the full replacement cost they expected. Understanding how ACV and RCV work early in a claim can help prevent delays, disputes, and unrecovered losses.
Recently, a Federal court’s ruling highlighted a critical risk for contractors who rely on contingency-based contracts. In this case, the contractor performed work and later asserted that approximately $50,000 remained unpaid, yet could not establish that the policyholder had an obligation to pay that amount. Because the contractor’s compensation was contingent on additional insurance recovery—rather than a price fixed by their contract—the alleged balance was treated as speculative rather than an actual debt.
In court, the contractor was unable to demonstrate whether the disputed amount represented unpaid work, eligible overhead and profit, or funds advanced by the business. The absence of a definite payment obligation left the court to conclude that the insurer had already satisfied the claim and that any remaining contractor charges were not legally due.
This outcome underscores the importance of clear, non-contingent contracts to protect contractors from performing substantial work without a legally collectible right to payment.
After property damage, many policyholders assume someone will help manage their insurance claim at no cost. In reality, professional claim advocacy is skilled, regulated work that cannot be “free” without hidden risks. Public insurance adjusters are licensed professionals who represent policyholders—not insurance companies—by documenting damage, interpreting coverage, and negotiating fair settlements. Hiring a public adjuster can be valuable in complex or disputed claims, but it requires a good-faith commitment to the contractual relationship. Seeking professional help without intending to honor those terms can disrupt the claim, create legal exposure, and ultimately harm the recovery process.
Suit limitation clauses in insurance policies impose strict contractual deadlines for filing lawsuits that are often much shorter than state statutes of limitations. Many policyholders and contractors mistakenly believe that ongoing claim negotiations, appraisal, partial payments, or the absence of a formal denial will pause or extend these deadlines. In reality, courts frequently enforce suit limitation provisions as written, and missing the deadline can permanently bar recovery—even when damage and underpayment are undisputed. Understanding and tracking these time limits from the date of loss is critical to preserving a policyholder’s ability to challenge claim decisions and protect their rights.
A Proof of Loss submission is a critical contractual requirement that can significantly impact the outcome of an insurance claim. When a policyholder fails to submit the form—whether sworn or unsworn—within the timeframes required by the policy or state administrative rules, insurers may deny, reduce, or limit coverage regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying damage. Many policyholders mistakenly rely on contractors or assume that estimates and invoices satisfy the requirement, but courts often enforce Proof of Loss deadlines strictly once the insurer has provided written notice. Missing or improperly executing this submission can eliminate negotiating leverage, impair appraisal or litigation rights, and, in some cases, permanently bar recovery. #Proof of Loss #POL #SPOL #Deadline
Insurance policies impose strict deadlines that can significantly affect a property owner’s ability to recover full claim benefits after a loss. Commonly missed requirements include timely notice of loss, sworn proof of loss submissions, deadlines to complete repairs in order to recover depreciation, and suit limitation clauses that restrict how long a policyholder has to pursue legal action. These deadlines often continue running even while a claim is being adjusted or negotiated, and missing them can reduce or permanently bar recovery. Understanding and tracking these contractual time limits is critical to protecting coverage rights and avoiding preventable claim denials. #POL #SPOL #Suit Limitation #Proof of Loss
Aggressive contractor tactics following storms and major weather events have drawn increasing scrutiny as some companies pressure homeowners into premature agreements or attempt to influence the insurance claims process. States are responding through stricter enforcement of public adjuster licensing laws, consumer-protection measures, and regulations targeting high-pressure solicitation. In Ohio, existing laws governing public adjusters, prohibitions on unauthorized claim handling, and home-solicitation protections form the foundation of these efforts, with additional proposals aimed at reducing post-loss contractor influence. These initiatives seek to protect policyholders, preserve the integrity of the claims process, and clarify the legal boundaries between contractors, adjusters, and insurers.
Many homeowners initially hesitate to hire a public adjuster because they worry that paying a fee will reduce their ability to complete repairs. These concerns often arise from fear, confusion about the insurance process, and the mistaken belief that the carrier’s adjuster represents their interests. Public adjusters can overcome these concerns by reframing the conversation around outcomes, not costs—showing how professional documentation, code analysis, and negotiation typically increase the overall recovery well beyond the fee. Sharing real examples, acknowledging emotional stress, clearly outlining the adjuster’s role, and offering simple explanations help build trust and clarity.
Effective client relationships begin with transparency, mutual understanding, and clear expectations about how the partnership works. Public adjusters must also take special care when working with elderly, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable policyholders, ensuring compliance with consumer-protection laws and providing extra clarity and sensitivity. When handled thoughtfully, fee concerns become an opportunity to educate, reassure, and form stronger, more collaborative client relationships.
Is now in Kentucky serving clients affected by the tornados. Stop by our satellite location at 3205 US Highway 641 N in Benton, KY. We’re just down the road from the Kentucky Opry.
