
Dale of Oklahoma City, OK on Jan. 1, 2000
An arson fire destroyed the inside of our house on April 16, 1997. The contents were severely damaged.
The insurance company denied access to my wife when we were trying to inventory the contents of our house. She arrived at the storage warehouse to finish the inventory and Class A Cleaners (the warehouse operators) told her the insurance company had closed it to her because they were going to do their own inventory.
The insurance company hired people to do the inventory and they mixed up the boxes to the point where we could not do a complete inventory without doing the whole job over. The insurance company has never provided us with a complete inventory from thier records.
The adjustor delivered a final check to the contractor without my authorization. After I had specifically told them in person and in writing that no check was to be issued without my express authorization. They did this with both the contractor and the storage firm.
Our policy has a clause that says I can sue them according to state law. I filed a complaint against them with the Oklahoma State Department of Insurance. I have since found that according to insurance law, I had to sue them within one year of the date of the loss instead of within three years of the date of the loss. The insurer never told me about the provision. Because they issued payment to the builder, I had no leverage to force him to repair items that were poorly done.
The builder's subcontractors installed warped doors, painted hardware on the doors, drew pictures on the wall in the garage, made holes in the walls and ceiieling in the garge to run wiring, left the cold air return vent out of the heating system for the downstairs (which starved my heating system and made our heating and cooling bill go up approximately 20%), installed drywall so poorly that you can see the outline of the ceiling drywall joints and on the walls in several places. I had to sue the builder to recover the cost of repairing the damage. If the insurer had not been so unprofessional, I could have had the work repaired by withholding final payment until it was satisfactory. The heating and air conditioning part will require another law suit to recoup cost of repairing their poor work.
The adjustor come to our house to try to finalize the loss. He insulted my wife, and left without finishing the adjusting because she reacted to him immediately. He then sent a check for the amount he arbitrarily set. Several items were not agreed to by me, and some were not discussed at all. He is offering a final settlement of about $3500. There is about $11,000 to $13,000 left to be settled.
His people estimated a cost of $1 each for Kodak slide tray boxes (the actual cost was between $5 and $6 per box. We feel there were at least twenty boxes of contents that we never inventoried due to the insurance company's interference. They have refused to pay for replacement of items such as drum rack clamps that were custom built to my son's specifications, they have refused to pay for replacement of a custom-built weight lifting rack (they call it homemade). They have refused to pay for electronic equipment that has never been returned to us, or has been damaged by water and smoke. We now have estimates for the repair and replacement. We intend to make one more try before going to arbitration.
The claim is not settled yet. And it has been over two years.
If we had been poor people without funds to weather this situation, I am confident the adjustor would have forced us to lose money on everything and that he would have been a very happy individual. He appears to enjoy making people feel uncomfortable and taking advantage of them. He seems to be very upset because I would not capitulate.
He has had to pay much more that I offered to settle for and it seems to make him harder to deal with. We thought we could trust these people and we feel we have suckers, that we have been tricked, that we have been taken advantage of, and that the insurance company took our money under false pretenses. We thought the purpose of insurance was to make one whole again after the loss, not to browbeat, intimidate and in general harass the insured after the loss.