Originally posted by Mitch Kronowit:
Originally posted by BryanA:
maybe somebody that's had a total loss could help us out and tell us what happened in his or her situation....
That's something I would like to read as well. I wonder what the insurance companies did during the mid-decade when the notes on people's properties exceeded the replacement cost? Surely they took the cheaper way out and simply rebuilt the house.
Perhaps they simply give the policy holder the option, especially if the alternative is less money. After all, the purpose of insurance is to make you "whole" after a loss. If you started with a $100,000 mortgage and a 3 BR house ($150k replacement cost) BEFORE the fire, you should end up with a $100k mortgage and a 3 BR house AFTER the fire - unless you'd rather have the smoldering dirt and no mortgage. ;-)
Replacement cost is just what it sounds like. You get the funds to replace the structure with similar amenities (sq ft, etc) but with modern materials. Otherwise, what's the point of having insurance if you own a property free and clear?
We had a fire claim recently that wasn't a total loss but we had it insured for replacement cost and was able to get the repairs done much cheaper than insurance paid. Those are the best kind of claims!