5214 S 2ND AVE 2016-11-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

2 T'he fre caused over $250,� scopes of repair; one totals coats of plaster. There is al adding two more coats. An metal lathe and three coats which I fett was not reason �.OQ dollars in damages to the building and in fact there are two ughly $259,000.00 dotlars specifying gypsum board with two more �dy one coat of plaster applied at the time of manufacture and then ier totals $252, 000.00 dollars for the damages while specifying plaster. One scope of repair l did not submit is for $299,000 dollars le for the work to be done for the repair of the building. The insuring agreement state , that in order to receive the Extended RC payment of one hundred twenty five percent an insure must be insured one hundred percent to value on the structure. My clients have $184,000.00 dol ars of stated liability and do qualify for the Extended RC at $46,000.00 which then gives armers a total monetary exposure of $230,000.00 dollars for the damages. I think you will e it is going to be difficult for my clients and Farmers insured's to be made whole with the num ers 1 have presented to you herein. Upon receiving the scopes bids I telephoned a Credited Real Estate Appraiser in Washington State to have that firm dete ine the ACV/MV of the building in discussion herein. The Appraiser by the Appraisal d termined the ACV/MV to be $137,303.U0. I sent the Appraisal to Mr. Eldon Lewis. I also disc ssed with him over the telephone the fact of having received the Appraisal. In our discussion cited the laws that have set precedent in our business how ACV/MV is determined. Mr. Lewis' answer to my statement was that "I know all about that crap!" He went on to say tha "I am going to do it my way by taking the scope of repair and depreciating it." I asked Mr. ewis if he is going to pay the ACV/MV by the Appraisal I sent him? He stated emphatically three times, no! In other words, he of his own volition is defying and subverting the law and s ndard set down by the Courts as follows; 1) National Fire Insurance C mpany v. Solomon, 96 Wn. 2D 763, 638 P.2D 763, 638 P.2D 1259 Jan 14, 1982 2) Hess v. North Pacific Ins. 7 Wn App. 783, 841 P.2D 767 Nov 24, 1993. As you know, Hess did not c ange Solomon, but limited Solomon in that an insured could anly receive ACV until the actua.l ount of damages�were repaired in order to receive the RC recovery. And Solomon state the ACVlMV is to be determined by a real estate Appraisal and not RC depreciated by an adj ster, eyuals ACV. In telling Mr. Lewis the afor entioned he asked, "what would I do if a loss is only $25,000.00?" � I pointed out to Mr. L,ewis th Hess case was established on a loss that did not exceed $20,000.00. In this matter, as previously inted out we have a loss that has a monetary exposure of $250,000.00 without enough swing liabiiity to cover the loss. Even if the insured's had not ualified for the Extended RC, the fac# that the Agent subscribed the insured to the policy from th date of inception of June 29, 2005 and of course had been collecting a premium for the xtended RC would have qua(ified the insured's for the full value on the building without the real state Appraisal. Mr. Lewis had told me eazly n in the process of this loss that all he wanted for the Campbell's loss was a"hammer and nail' contractor. I don't really know that connotation unless he means somebody "cheap, shoddy an fast: ' He went on to say that he is not going to accept anyor►e different. The scope of repai I received are for the true vaiue of the toss and are from venerable contractors in the Western W hington area. They have been in the fire repair business for several �/b