Storm damage called age

Universal inspected the subject property by way of a field adjuster by the name of [name redacted] (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Based on the insufficient adjustment of the claim as outlined herein, Universal issued a wholly unsatisfactory valuation of $4,896.13 replacement cost value for the loss. In opposition to same, prior to suit being filed, the Complainant through his retained counsel provided an estimate with a valuation of $188,920.53 replacement cost value that duly takes into consideration the full extent of the latent conditions, that serve to create a plethora of extra contractual damages that continue to accrue, given Universal's general business practice of failing to adjust the full extent of the damages as outlined herein.

After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster prepared an estimate identifying $88,747.74 in covered damage to the dwelling and $213.57 in damage to contents. However, the Insurer wrongfully determined that it would only require $7,155.57 to restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition. Subsequently, the Insurer re-inspected the property on April 6, 2023, and discovered $31,286.71 in damage.

After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster prepared an estimate identifying $111,657.82 in covered damage to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer who thereafter assigned claim no. [redacted] to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property on March 14, 2024. The Insurer based this denial on the rationale that the damage sustained was a result of " wear and tear, deterioration and prior deficiencies." As the discovery process will uncover, the Insurer's adjuster intentionally ignored the damage observed and has failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts following the investigation.