Something that I thought was funny

Originally Posted By: kluce
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



My boss in Kentucky had a trailor on a large piece of property. Over time he built a house around the trailor. One morning, the whole thing burnt to the ground. The funny thing was he tried to collect from his insurance for two houses. He acutally was mad when they told him “no way”. icon_lol.gif


I bet to this day, he feels he should have gotten the money for both the trailer and the house he built around it.


Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Kevin,


Would the auto insurance cover the loss of the trailor?

Joe Myers


Originally Posted By: kluce
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Sorry, I used the word trailer but it was really a moble home. The moble home was about 17 years old at the time he started to build around it. I would say the moble home was about 25 years old when the fire happened.


Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Kevin,


Don't they hold any value? I would think it would, even if a small value!

Joe Myers


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



My guess is that the insurance company paid for both, under the guise of ‘one structure’, and refused to separate out the two separate payoff amounts as the structure around the mobile most likely reduced the valued of the mobile home, and the mobile home inside the surrounding structure most likely reduced the value of the structure.


One insured loss equals one payment.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: kluce
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



To my understanding, the insurance company took the value of the house including the trailer within. I also think that the trailer lowered the value of the house as a whole. The owner wanted a check from the wood structure and another check for the mobile home. I just know he was upset when he didn’t get a check for the mobile home.


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Kevin,


The insurance company could have handled it this way:

Insurance company: "Here's a check for the structure and its contents."

Insured: "But I want a separate check for the mobile home."

Insurance company: "But that old mobile home had little value anyway, and even less enclosed inside a structure because it was no longer 'mobile'."

Insured: "But I want separate checks for each."

Insurance company: "Okay, here is a check for the structure less its contents, and here is a check for the mobile home."

Insured: "Hey! Wait a minute! You reduced the structure check by $10,000 but only gave $500 for the mobile home!"

Insurance company: "Right. The structure check no longer includes its contents, the mobile home was part of its contents. The mobile home has no value enclosed inside that structure as it was no longer mobile, but we gave you $500 for it anyway."

![](upload://tOFR49XcSUR6VxYf75jPQ9UWDwd.gif)


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: kluce
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I don’t know. Most of us at the time thought that if you build additions around an existing structure that it would not be consider two or more structures. It this case, there was so much built around the mobile home that the structure was completely covered. O-well. It was funny seeing him being pissed off for most of the morning.