The $600 million Loss That No One is Talking About – The BC NDP Government

The $600 million Loss That No One is Talking About

A $600 million yearly  loss.

Six hundred million dollars.

$600 million is the amount the BC NDP government is actively trying to remove from the BC economy each year, through their 2018 budget, yet no one is talking about it.

Why?

Have they yet to figure it out?

Are math skills and economic skills so poor?

Or is ideology at the cost to the average British Columbian more important?

Let me fill you in.

The BC 2018 budget revealed a speculation “tax”. However, it isn’t a “tax”, it is a penalty. The properties affected already pay property taxes at about 30% more than a British Columbian resident who receives a “grant”; yes a nifty two tiered pricing that seems to never be questioned. This is a “speculation” tax ON TOP. But it isn’t a tax, is it? “Sin tax” or “luxury tax” are taxes that are applied at the point of sale. The consumer knows openly the financial commitment that is required of them and enter into the purchase and taxation in good faith.

This “speculation tax” tax is a fine, just like you are being fined for breaking the law. It is ALL it can be. This is a tax for breaking a law that doesn’t exist. The BC NDP government are trying to create laws of their own. The BC NDP government are making up imaginary and discriminatory laws, under the guise of “policy”, that breaks the Canadian Charter of Rights that ensures all Canadians are equal, have equal opportunity, and can live free from discrimination. The BC NDP Government are concocting fake laws that make it okay to fine people from out-of-province who LEGALLY bought property, in good faith, in their province years ago. The BC NDP government are trying to cleanse their province of the dirty out-of-province owners that they deem criminal for having invested in the province of British Columbia; “criminal” is all we can be as the owners are being fined. FINED.

So, The BC NDP government ramped up their xenophobic rhetoric, stood on their virtual soap boxes, and shouted to their people that the BC affordable housing crisis is the fault of “out-of-province” and foreign property owners. Every one of the 4.8 million BC residents are being destroyed by the “out-of-province” and foreign owners according to the government. And so they ramped up the campaign of dislike.

But here is what the BC NDP government didn’t tell you, this is the story of a $600 million per year loss.

Financial Post link: http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/mortgages-real-estate/fear-and-uncertainty-out-of-province-homebuyers-could-rush-to-sell-if-b-c-slaps-speculation-tax?fb_comment_id=1689902597766541_1690583327698468&comment_id=1690583327698468#f2522e3d4da2a62

According to the Financial Post story on March 12, 2018 by Geoffrey Morgan, there are approximately 15,000 residential properties targeted by this speculation tax. The government has fed a narrative to their population that these homes are just sitting empty while owners wait for the value to increase. Interestingly, the government is wrong on both counts. The properties were not bought for the purpose of speculation (some have been owned for generations). Nor do the properties sit empty, rather they are residences used in conjunction with other properties in other provinces. These owners identify as bi-provincial, and the ability to live freely anywhere in Canada again is covered under the Charter. In this era of self identity being so protected by the federal government, it is shocking that a provincial government would penalize these owners as identifying as bi-provincial; even more shocking for a left leaning government to discriminate against a population as to how they self identify.

The government may be fine with discriminating against the “bi” community, but what they are also doing is harming the ones that they profess to help.

What the BC NDP government have failed to tell their population, for fear that it will undermine their ideological xenophobic dislike of “out-of-province” owners, is that “out-of-province” property owners are actually INVESTORS. We invest in the province, we add to the economy, with “out-of-province” money. Through owning property, each year we spend a considerable amount of money on product and services in BC. For us personally, it is around $40K annually.

Here is the math.

15,000 targeted homes  X  $40,000 spent per household per year = $600,000,000 of investment into the BC economy with “out-of-province” dollars.

$600 MILLION per year…….and this is on top of the $1.4 billion in the form of the yearly Alberta tourism dollars.

What the government hasn’t equated, is that if these homes are either sold or locked up and left “empty” as their hallucination says they are, not only is $600 million of out-of-province investment removed from the BC economy each year, so are jobs. The $600 million is money that the BC NDP government can not generate from their population, this is money GIFTED by Canadians from other provinces to the province and citizens of British Columbia. The homes go, the yearly investment goes, and jobs go.

A $600 million yearly loss to the economy equates to a job loss of 20,000 entry level full time jobs.

Yes, a 20,000 person JOB LOSS.

20,000 PEOPLE PUT OUT OF WORK BY THE BC NDP GOVERNMENT THROUGH THEIR POLICY OF IDEOLOGICAL DISLIKE OF OTHER CANADIANS………. but the job losses will greatly exceed that, because all of this bad press will also impact the BC tourism industry, wine industry, and real estate industries. The BC NDP government is CHOOSING to put their province into a recession.

The BC NDP government have chosen to attack 15,000 property owners in an attempt to put 20,000 of their own residents out of work.

In an attempt to deport 15,000 “out-of-province” investors/property owners, the government will forcibly create unemployment for 20,000 BC residents.

Now when you take into account that in 2016 the average BC household had a 2.4 person occupancy, it means that the best case scenario is that these targeted homes, if all emptied, would house 36,000 people. Yet, 20,000 of those people will now be unemployed, which brings us down to 16,000 working people. Assume the 0.4 of the household count are children, and that reduces the buying power by another 6000 people bringing the total number of people potentially employed to be able to pay for housing down to 10,000.

So we now have 10,000 who will benefit from this xenophobic “speculation tax”, but we aren’t done yet.

Back to math class.

10,000 people employed to pay for housing (divided by) 2 (as at today’s house prices it is a two income purchase) = 5,000 homes.

Just to recap. The BC NDP government targets 15,000 homes, in order to put a minimum of 20,000 BC residents out of work, in an effort to fill 5,000 more homes.

But there is more to the story.

The BCHAF proposal that the “speculation tax” was based on was focused ONLY on the Lower Mainland area. This was the area of housing concern.

The homes needed aren’t the ones in Kelowna, Nanaimo, Victoria or the Gulf Islands (islands of which some have no ferry or electricity) which is where the vast majority of the affected properties are. The properties they need are homes within spitting distance of English Bay in Vancouver.

Is anyone seeing a problem here?

The BC NDP government is consciously choosing to break the Canadian Charter of Rights, drive away investment, drive away tourism, create unemployment, create a self-created recession, and still not have housing in the geographic area where it is needed.

Problematic.

But we aren’t done……

There is one last piece to the puzzle.

People who own property are generally “numbers people”. Seriously, there isn’t a thing that isn’t spreadsheeted. They also tend to be competitive. Due to this I see a potential twist. I look into my crystal ball and I see some owners sticking it to the BC NDP government on the basis of “affordable housing”. I foresee owners of million dollar homes selling them to big off shore money, and in turn buying up the more modest affordable homes in BC to beat the tax. Cash sales. No chain. Bam. You think BC has an affordable home crisis now, well this will seal up the inventory for sure.

So there is the story.

• A $600 million yearly loss of investment to the province of British Columbia
• A 20,000 person job loss
• Lost tourism revenue
• Breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights
• A self-induced recession
• No more affordable housing in the areas where it is required
• The potential to encourage “out-of-province” owners to sell luxury properties and in turn buy “affordable” properties, thus reducing affordable housing inventory.

You have to admit, the BC NDP government are “pretty special” in coming up with such an amazing “speculation tax” policy. Personally, I don’t think this is the political legacy I would wish to be known for.

The Handmade in Canada Shop Has Been Updated!

I know my blogging has been a little quiet lately, and one of the reasons is I have been working away. In addition to a busy photography month, I have also been updating my other project, Handmade in Canada. Let’s just say when you dye your own yarn and knit your own items it takes time.

So after weeks and weeks of knitting, the shop has finally been updated. There are a ton of new items and we are pretty excited about sharing them with you. All our items are naturally dyed by hand and made by hand too. If you have a moment check it out.

 

Also at the bottom of the Handmade in Canada site are our social media links. We can be found on Facebook and Instagram (@handmadeincanada), plus you can hit the follow button to follow the blog. I hope you will follow along and see all the cool items we are making.

www.handmade-canada.com

The Great Insurance Scam

The Great Insurance Scam………under-insure to force people to settle.

There you have it folks, now would you like the back story?

Not long ago I wrote THIS post and at the end I wrote an edit which was a rebuttal to a response from our insurance adjuster. I thought I would re-share the thoughts here as it has an “A HA Moment” that every person who holds insurance needs to think about. It outlines how property owners are being vastly under-insured so that they can be bullied into taking inferior settlements. Please have a read and please help “out” this practice in the insurance industry if you or your family have been victimized.

———————————————————————————————–

This entry begins with a response from our adjuster, amazing what you have to do to get a response acknowledging a receipt of an email.

Below is the email we received this evening with names “x”‘d for privacy reasons.

Mr. and Mrs. xxxxxxx,
Please accept this e-mail as confirmation of your prior correspondence and request to have the cabin repaired.
As I stated to Mr. xxxx on the phone I was communicating the decision that Wawanesa did not accept the building quotations presented.
Mr. xxxxx stated he was having a very difficult time in secure builders to quote on the replacement of the cabin.
He stated he was not even getting return calls for requests for quotes.
As explained the quotes to replace based on the total square footage of the structure would be in the category of a full custom home.
The quotes presented have been reviewed by the appraiser on file and submitted to Wawanesa.
I have not ignored your file as you have stated below.
As stated to Mr. xxxxx on the phone and at his request I approached Pxxxxx  yesterday to see if they would be interested in seeing if they would perform repairs at the structure.
I am waiting for their response. As the Representative from Pxxxxxxx needed to review the file and discuss it with management.
Future, I am also waiting for instructions on the file.
At present as both parties seem to be at an impasse as it would related to the quantum of the damages it appears necessary to proceed with the appraisal process as set forth in the Insurance Act.
Please accept this communication as first notice of this process. Our office will forward further written communication with the appropriate forms shortly.
We have made every effort to accommodate your requests. This commenced with a detailed investigation, coverage review and the presentation of timely settlement offer once the second review process was completed.
I have not stated the cabin can be repaired. The determination of repairability is made by construction experts. This the reason why I have spoken to Pxxxxxx. I have not been able to communicate with the project manager with Bxxxxxx at this time as he is not back from vacation.
Mr. Hxxxxxxx stated it is the obligation of the insurer to repair the cabin and to place you back into the same position prior to the loss.
Further I wish to advise that in accordance with the insurance act it is the insured who has to choose their contractor. While we can recommend one the contract for reconstruction rests with you.
Clearly my comments to Mr. Hxxxxxx have been taken out of context and I find it interesting this communication states something different than what our understanding was.
Accordingly future communication will be in writing by e-mail or by way of in person meeting at your brokers office where the meeting can be appropriately documented for the file.
Thank you,

……………………………………………

Followed by the rebuttal:

First we have two hugely detailed quotes in our personal possession for the repair of the cabin stating exactly what needs to be done, provided to us by the insurance adjuster. His chosen professionals. These quotes and scope of work were completed by the two firms mentioned in the email above. “Repairability” has actually already been assessed; it was assessed in the spring of 2015. The quotes were completed by “construction experts” as stated above. This leaves one to question the statements in the above email. If the quotes are valid, it is just a call or email to the contractor to okay the work. It makes me wonder how valid the quotes are. Were they manufactured? We’ll see. My husband has a theory on this, but we will leave it there for now.

Secondly how can insurance simply not accept the quotations? These are the only quotes we could get. We even asked to see the Wawanesa quote, but the request was ignored. Was this Wawanesa quote for a rebuild fictionalized ? We knew their quote was off because we knew how expensive our fireplace was to replace; it is hand laid brick. We were offered $126,725.37 including demo for a TOTAL LOSS; we are insured for $167,000 (and still paying to have the property insured at this level). A difference of $40, 274.63. Demolition is averaging at about $10K, the fireplace averages out at $12.5K. If we take off these two items alone we are left at $104, 225.37, not even enough for a single wide trailer. But beyond that I will share the actual quotes we were given by two contractors that did not know each other (from different cities) and that we do not know from beyond asking for a quote. These quotes are WITHOUT FOUNDATION. Quote #1 – $239, 058.75
and Quote #2 – $259,610.40. You see our cabin is built on post and pier as a foundation so insurance refuses to put a foundation under our cabin. They tell us this over and over. They say it is a “code upgrade”. What it comes down to is even if we achieved a full settlement for what we are insured for, at best we are $72,058.75 short, plus we still need to pay for a foundation. With the settlement of $126,725,37 we are $112,333.38 short. We insured this property trusting our broker and Wawanesa that our investment would be secure if disaster ever struck. Our investment is LOST due to insuring with Wawanesa. Repair is the only way we can attempt any form of salvage of our investment and property.

It is not our fault as an insured that it is difficult to get quotes. (Of course Wawanesa, or the adjuster, refused to share their quote with us.) It is a rural area. Wawanesa insured the property, they knew its location, they took the risk. Remote areas cost more for builds, for service people, for trades. Rural areas lack amenities such as the local hardware store and require added cost regarding travel time and travel costs. It is a one off build, it isn’t a housing development. So when the adjuster says in the email above: “As explained the quotes to replace based on the total square footage of the structure would be in the category of a full custom home.” Yeah, every total loss infill build IS a full custom home……WITHOUT FOUNDATION…..that is a “code upgrade”.

So let’s assess this statement: “Further I wish to advise that in accordance with the insurance act it is the insured who has to choose their contractor. While we can recommend one the contract for reconstruction rests with you.” This is interesting. A few years ago our home suffered sewer back up. Wawanesa was the insurance company. Here is how the discussion went:

– Adjuster – (says to us over the restoration work) – “Do you have a preferred contractor?”,
– Us – “No”.
-Adjuster – “Is it okay if we use xxxxxx?”- us – “Fine.”
– the adjuster dealt with the contractor, the quotes, the work. All we had to do was let the workers in and write the cheque for the deductible. Proper handling. Respectful and professional handling.

Completely different handling. Both water situations, but one is our house and one is our recreational property. One was being tended to within days while our recreational property still hasn’t been tended to 14 months (less two days) from the date of discovery of the damage; it still sits waterlogged. Why the difference in handling? Why are we so under-insured? Why is the settlement offer so below the amount we are paying for when the property is a TOTAL LOSS. There is something very, very wrong.

I am becoming increasing wary and suspicious of the whole situation.  Do you think a contractor will repair our cabin for what is quoted? I doubt it, it seems to be a special “insurance rate”. This is why in the email above the adjuster is trying to wiggle out of responsibility to repair our cabin. That is why he is deferring to the Insurance Act, so that they can cut a cheque and leave us without enough funds for the repair. It is happening all the time, my husband has come home with multiple stories of insureds who have been completely screwed by the company that they trusted.

We can’t remotely rebuild our property even though our broker has time and again run the numbers for what it should be insured for. His numbers come up the same every time. The build quotes are $72,058.75 short without a foundation. Someone is setting these numbers, I don’t know if it is Wawanesa or some other aspect of the insurance industry, but they are vastly wrong. How can a company insure a property, it ends up a full loss, but changes to the building code means it is the insureds fault? They know no one can rebuild. The numbers that we pay insurance for should reflect numbers where a property can be rebuilt to code.

And there is the “A HA Moment”. Did you catch that?

They know no one can rebuild. The numbers that we pay insurance for should reflect numbers where a property can be rebuilt to code.

And there in lies the scam of the insurance industry. If they knowingly under-insure you they know their customer, especially if the adjusters are nasty enough, will eventually cave. It is a scam. It is a scam by the whole insurance industry to make people settle.

Insurance doesn’t protect your investment.

Insurance is there to screw you over and take advantage of you when you are at your lowest.

Wawanesa states on the third page of their 2013 Annual Report the following values:

VALUES

•

We treat others in a respectful and truthful manner.

•

We conduct business with integrity, honesty, consistency and fairness.

•

We act ethically and lawfully.

•

We take pride in making service a priority.

•

We encourage collaboration, innovation and excellence.

•

We support the communities in which we work and live

 

Spot the difference with what we have experienced!

 ——————————————————————————————————

 

Please check out your policies, do due diligence, and take issues further and public if you feel victimized. For Alberta this information may be of use:

Alberta Treasury Board and Finance
Superintendent of Insurance
Financial Sector Regulation and Policy (FSRP)
Room 402, Terrace Building
9515 – 107 Street
Edmonton, Alberta, T5K 2C3

PHONE:  780-427-8322

TOLL-FREE:  (In Alberta):  Dial 310-0000, then 780-427-8322

EMAIL:  tbf.insurance@gov.ab.ca

.

.

.

.

 

Ads belong to WordPress.

Wawanesa & Associates Continues To Operate In Bad Faith

Well it is probably about time for an update on the cabin. I know hundreds upon hundreds of insured people are now reading this saga. How do I know you may ask? Well my husband talks to hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of people dealing with hail claims and he has been passing on our saga to all that will listen. Then I have the people personally emailing me and sharing their own issues. And of course a recent post generated over 94,000 reads and a ton of new followers, so let’s just say, word is out……big time.

So we are on adjuster #2. Thought it might be better. Well I will let you be the judge. We thought it was worth sharing our latest developments here so everyone else will know what tactics Wawanesa are using.

Everyone is being screwed over by insurance at the moment. They are doing unsatisfactory patches instead of replacing siding. They are denying hail when the hail is obvious. They are arguing the square footage of roofs . They are trying to use roofers as adjusters. Even those in the industry are disgusted by some of the tactics.

I do have a website prepped focusing on insurance issues. It is time for us to all out what is going on. Once I make a few modifications to the site it will be up and others will be able to share their mistreatment by the insurance industry. The goal is to bring all these bad experiences together to show systematic corruption and cheating of the insured parties by the insurance industry. I will share the link to the site here once it is fully published, and I invite everyone to share it. We are all getting screwed and it is time to fight back.

For your amusement, here is the latest email that we have sent. You will see just how crooked the insurance industry is. Square footage is misrepresented , and we aren’t even allowed to show our proof of loss….they just didn’t accept it. Anyways, have a read:

Dear xxx,

I am writing to confirm that you received our email of November 3, 2015 indicating we wish to REPAIR our cabin.

I have been advised to confirm this with you as you seem to have a tactic where you choose to ignore certain situations. For instance:

– you chose to ignore our request to see how Wawanesa calculated how much it would cost to rebuild our cabin

– you chose to ignore the fact that Wawanesa had undersized the square footage of our actual cabin and that window sizes were misrepresented in the paperwork

– you chose to not re-adjust the offer for settlement when we pointed out the inaccuracies in size and details

– we provided quotes based WITHOUT foundation and you REFUSED to accept them. We PROVED our loss and you simply said no. Well actually you didn’t just say “no”, you said they were “P.F.O. Quotes”……..PLEASE FUCK OFF QUOTES. Unprofessional. I cannot believe you would treat an insured in such a way.

(and this doesn’t even go into the attempt to depreciate the cabin back to a date prior to it being constructed https://htheblog.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/wawanesa-insurance-problem-how-can-you-be-dinged-for-depreciation-from-before-the-property-was-built/ )

I am attaching the quotes for those cc.’d on here to have as proof that we did prove our loss.

I am reiterating here that you promised our cabin can be repaired, you HAVE a quote that you approve of, and you HAVE a contractor that you approve of. I want to know WHEN WORK WILL COMMENCE. This claim has been in progress since September 2014 and this extended loss of use is unacceptable. Your quote indicates the repair will take 16 weeks which means we need to get on this now. The key to the cabin is in the lock box attached to the cabin provided by YOUR contractor of which you and Wawanesa approve. There is no cause for delay. And as you pointed out over the phone, that prices should be cheaper because of oil being down (evidently out of work riggers are expert construction workers…who knew), I am sure your preferred contractor is able to get on the job right away.

Just to simplify, I need to know when repairs start and the guaranteed completion date, plus where to send our deductible cheque.

I look forward to our cabin being meticulously repaired piece by piece by hand in sub-zero temperatures. I am so glad you gave us this option. And by the way, before we hear anymore threats of “code issues”, electrical and plumbing is circa 2003, as is the back portion of the cabin, and the rest is a “repair”.

Please have the common decency to at least reply to this email as our last one was ignored. Surely acknowledging is part of an adjuster’s duty, or perhaps it was just a “P.F.O” lack of response.

Thanks for reading. And I won’t tell my readers to “P.F.O”.

.

November 5, 2015 -6:53 pm Edited to add:

So we have had a response from our adjuster, amazing what you have to do to get a response acknowledging a receipt of an email.

For continuity sake here is the response with names “x”‘d for privacy reasons.

Mr. and Mrs. xxxxxxx,
Please accept this e-mail as confirmation of your prior correspondence and request to have the cabin repaired.
As I stated to Mr. xxxx on the phone I was communicating the decision that Wawanesa did not accept the building quotations presented.
Mr. xxxxx stated he was having a very difficult time in secure builders to quote on the replacement of the cabin.
He stated he was not even getting return calls for requests for quotes.
As explained the quotes to replace based on the total square footage of the structure would be in the category of a full custom home.
The quotes presented have been reviewed by the appraiser on file and submitted to Wawanesa.
I have not ignored your file as you have stated below.
As stated to Mr. xxxxx on the phone and at his request I approached Pxxxxx  yesterday to see if they would be interested in seeing if they would perform repairs at the structure.
I am waiting for their response. As the Representative from Pxxxxxxx needed to review the file and discuss it with management.
Future, I am also waiting for instructions on the file.
At present as both parties seem to be at an impasse as it would related to the quantum of the damages it appears necessary to proceed with the appraisal process as set forth in the Insurance Act.
Please accept this communication as first notice of this process. Our office will forward further written communication with the appropriate forms shortly.
We have made every effort to accommodate your requests. This commenced with a detailed investigation, coverage review and the presentation of timely settlement offer once the second review process was completed.
I have not stated the cabin can be repaired. The determination of repairability is made by construction experts. This the reason why I have spoken to Pxxxxxx. I have not been able to communicate with the project manager with Bxxxxxx at this time as he is not back from vacation.
Mr. Hxxxxxxx stated it is the obligation of the insurer to repair the cabin and to place you back into the same position prior to the loss.
Further I wish to advise that in accordance with the insurance act it is the insured who has to choose their contractor. While we can recommend one the contract for reconstruction rests with you.
Clearly my comments to Mr. Hxxxxxx have been taken out of context and I find it interesting this communication states something different than what our understanding was.
Accordingly future communication will be in writing by e-mail or by way of in person meeting at your brokers office where the meeting can be appropriately documented for the file.
Thank you,

……………………………………………

So I will have my rebuttal here.

First we have two hugely detailed quotes in our personal possession for the repair of the cabin stating exactly what needs to be done, provided to us by the insurance adjuster. His chosen professionals. These quotes and scope of work were completed by the two firms mentioned in the email above. “Repairability” has actually already been assessed; it was assessed in the spring of 2015. The quotes were completed by “construction experts” as stated above. This leaves one to question the statements in the above email. If the quotes are valid, it is just a call or email to the contractor to okay the work. It makes me wonder how valid the quotes are. Were they manufactured? We’ll see. My husband has a theory on this, but we will leave it there for now.

Secondly how can insurance simply not accept the quotations? These are the only quotes we could get. We even asked to see the Wawanesa quote, but the request was ignored. Was this Wawanesa quote for a rebuild fictionalized ? We knew their quote was off because we knew how expensive our fireplace was to replace; it is hand laid brick. We were offered $126,725.37 including demo for a TOTAL LOSS; we are insured for $167,000 (and still paying to have the property insured at this level). A difference of $40, 274.63. Demolition is averaging at about $10K, the fireplace averages out at $12.5K. If we take off these two items alone we are left at $104, 225.37, not even enough for a single wide trailer. But beyond that I will share the actual quotes we were given by two contractors that did not know each other (from different cities) and that we do not know from beyond asking for a quote. These quotes are WITHOUT FOUNDATION. Quote #1 – $239, 058.75
and Quote #2 – $259,610.40. You see our cabin is built on post and pier as a foundation so insurance refuses to put a foundation under our cabin. They tell us this over and over. They say it is a “code upgrade”. What it comes down to is even if we achieved a full settlement for what we are insured for, at best we are $72,058.75 short, plus we still need to pay for a foundation. With the settlement of $126,725,37 we are $112,333.38 short. We insured this property trusting our broker and Wawanesa that our investment would be secure if disaster ever struck. Our investment is LOST due to insuring with Wawanesa. Repair is the only way we can attempt any form of salvage of our investment and property.

It is not our fault as an insured that it is difficult to get quotes. (Of course Wawanesa, or the adjuster, refused to share their quote with us.) It is a rural area. Wawanesa insured the property, they knew its location, they took the risk. Remote areas cost more for builds, for service people, for trades. Rural areas lack amenities such as the local hardware store and require added cost regarding travel time and travel costs. It is a one off build, it isn’t a housing development. So when the adjuster says in the email above: “As explained the quotes to replace based on the total square footage of the structure would be in the category of a full custom home.” Yeah, every total loss infill build IS a full custom home……WITHOUT FOUNDATION…..that is a “code upgrade”.

So let’s assess this statement: “Further I wish to advise that in accordance with the insurance act it is the insured who has to choose their contractor. While we can recommend one the contract for reconstruction rests with you.” This is interesting. A few years ago our home suffered sewer back up. Wawanesa was the insurance company. Here is how the discussion went:

– Adjuster – (says to us over the restoration work) – “Do you have a preferred contractor?”,
– Us – “No”.
-Adjuster – “Is it okay if we use xxxxxx?”- us – “Fine.”
– the adjuster dealt with the contractor, the quotes, the work. All we had to do was let the workers in and write the cheque for the deductible. Proper handling. Respectful and professional handling.

Completely different handling. Both water situations, but one is our house and one is our recreational property. One was being tended to within days while our recreational property still hasn’t been tended to 14 months (less two days) from the date of discovery of the damage; it still sits waterlogged. Why the difference in handling? Why are we so under-insured? Why is the settlement offer so below the amount we are paying for when the property is a TOTAL LOSS. There is something very, very wrong.

I am becoming increasing wary and suspicious of the whole situation.  Do you think a contractor will repair our cabin for what is quoted? I doubt it, it seems to be a special “insurance rate”. This is why in the email above the adjuster is trying to wiggle out of responsibility to repair our cabin. That is why he is deferring to the Insurance Act, so that they can cut a cheque and leave us without enough funds for the repair. It is happening all the time, my husband has come home with multiple stories of insureds who have been completely screwed by the company that they trusted.

We can’t remotely rebuild our property even though our broker has time and again run the numbers for what it should be insured for. His numbers come up the same every time. The build quotes are $72,058.75 short without a foundation. Someone is setting these numbers, I don’t know if it is Wawanesa or some other aspect of the insurance industry, but they are vastly wrong. How can a company insure a property, it ends up a full loss, but changes to the building code means it is the insureds fault? They know no one can rebuild. The numbers that we pay insurance for should reflect numbers where a property can be rebuilt to code.

And there is the “A HA Moment”. Did you catch that?

They know no one can rebuild. The numbers that we pay insurance for should reflect numbers where a property can be rebuilt to code.

And there in lies the scam of the insurance industry. If they knowingly under-insure you they know their customer, especially if the adjusters are nasty enough, will eventually cave. It is a scam. It is a scam by the whole insurance industry to make people settle.

Insurance doesn’t protect your investment.

Insurance is there to screw you over and take advantage of you when you are at your lowest.

Wawanesa states on the third page of their 2013 Annual Report the following values:

VALUES

•

We treat others in a respectful and truthful manner.

•

We conduct business with integrity, honesty, consistency and fairness.

•

We act ethically and lawfully.

•

We take pride in making service a priority.

•

We encourage collaboration, innovation and excellence.

•

We support the communities in which we work and live

 

Spot the difference with what we have experienced!

————

And just to address one other statement in the above email, the adjuster states “Clearly my comments to Mr. Hxxxxxx have been taken out of context and I find it interesting this communication states something different than what our understanding was.” Could someone please tell me how anyone can take out of context  “PLEASE FUCK OFF QUOTES“? That was a pretty clear and pretty inappropriate comment.

Stay tuned.

 

 

.

Ads belong to WordPress.