Hey, James; be sure to let us know how your claim proceeds, with Hagerty.
In my professional opinion, Hagerty may correctly attempt to settle your
claim based upon the car's condition
at the time of the fire (partially restored, and/or may value it on its
pre-restoration value, plus whatever restoration
costs that you have invested in it), as opposed to whatever its Fair
Market Value may have been, after it might
have left the restoration shop.
They might take into consideration any significant parts that were not
destroyed (off premises) at the time of the fire.
An interesting theory would be what the shop might owe to you, if they
had been legally liable for
the fire's creation : would a court determine that the shop would have
owed you for the finished-work's
actual cash value, on the car, or, only its value as-was, at the time
of the fire?
I'm also researching Jame's recourses, against his Homeowner's carrier,
which may be resisting the extension of his
"Personal Property" coverage onto the PARTS-car which also burned-up in
the fire, at the resto shop.
"Motorized Vehicles" are not covered under a Homeowners policy, but,
"car-parts" are NOT excluded from
Personal Property coverage, and a non-driveable "parts-car" is merely an
assemblage of contiguous car-parts.
Neil Vedder (still not reimbursed for his own good-faith shipping costs)
James Z wrote:
For those interested, I posted some photos of my burned out car on the
Forum. They are posted in the 'Members Rides' section. Here is a link:
http://www.forwardlook.net/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=18070&posts=4#M
108704
James
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network