One year ago this month, my hometown of Portland, Michigan was struck by a tornado. The storm damaged several homes, businesses, and churches. Thankfully, no one was seriously injured, and one year later the town has largely recovered. I know of several good friends who have recently moved back into repaired and rebuilt homes and offices, thanks to the benefits provided by their insurance providers. However, it has not been an easy road back for everyone. I blogged about the storm and some of the recovery struggles last fall.
Some of my friends who are ecstatic to be back in their home or office have mixed feelings about the sometimes long and arduous claims process they endured to get there. There are also a few situations where people are still not back in their damaged homes primarily because the insurance coverage they purchased was insufficient. Two such situations involve older, shall we say “vintage,” homes whose owners understandably want the repairs done with like-kind and quality materials rather than similar or functionally equivalent materials. The trouble is that like-kind and quality materials in vintage homes are much more expensive and not typically covered by traditional homeowners insurance policies. Therein lies the source of conflict and the delay in getting these policyholders back in their homes.
I can certainly empathize with these policyholders who understandably assume that the insurance they bought would indemnify them by restoring them back to their pre-loss state regardless of their purchased limits and the loss settlement technicalities of the insurance contract. Most insurance consumers fail to understand that there is no direct correlation between their home’s market value and the true cost to rebuild it. Furthermore, the typical insurance policy provides for similar or functionally equivalent materials because that is perfectly acceptable to the vast majority of homeowners and makes the cost of the insurance policy more affordable. For those consumers with vintage homes that they want to have restored with like-kind, quality, and workmanship, the simple truth is that it costs more to do so. It likely requires that the consumer purchase higher limits and also loss settlement provisions that reflect this desire. That means paying a higher premium – something most consumers resist even when all of this is explained to them. My late father was a smart man, and he often used the phrase, “Son, you get what you pay for.”
I feel bad for my Portland brethren who are still embroiled in disputes with their insurance companies almost a year after the storm. It’s no fun for the insurers either, as they take a black-eye in public relations even though they are abiding by the contract that was sold. Nevertheless, the industry, and especially the agents who sold these policies, must shoulder some of the blame for not being more careful at the time of sale. I am not going to name names here, but agents who become “order-takers” rather than personal risk advisers to their clients are doing their clients and themselves no favors. I would much rather see an agent take the time to understand the nature of a client’s home, and if it’s vintage or has vintage elements, the implications for insurance coverage must be fully explained and proper coverage for the client’s expectations must be recommended. Perhaps the customer is fine with losing some of the vintage charm of his/her home by replacing ornate doors and trim with contractor-grade materials because they don’t want to pay more in premiums. The point is, that discussion must occur and the agent/personal risk adviser needs to have the client “sign-off” on such decisions. If they want to fully restore their damaged home to its vintage charm, then they must invest the time with their agent and underwriter to obtain that level of coverage and pay for it. “You get what you pay for,” or another apropos phrase my father often used, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”