Insurance Company giving me a hard time

[kd460]

2001 Trail-lite 5280-s 5th wheel camper. I have owned it since 2002 (purchased from dealer new as last years inventory).

Camper is stored out doors since day one in Michigan. Well, we had record snow falls this last winter and my camper suffered from it.

Ceiling (roof) is now sagging from the weight of the snow this past winter. I can physically move the ceiling up and down about 3 inches with my hands. When I say ceiling I mean roof and all.

Contacted insurance company, eventually got someone to come look at it. Was told by this person after he looked at it, that it will be fixed, was about $5500 dollars and was asked where would I like to take the camper for repairs? Was also told by the inspector that he would put the information together and insurance company would contact me.

Never heard from them for weeks, so I called. Now they are saying that they feel it is water that caused the sag and is not covered.

I insisted there is no leak. Never has been a leak, not before sag, and not even now after. I was in the camper during a heavy rainfall 2 weeks ago, and still no leaks. White ceilings and walls. Not a spot or stain, or drip or anything since I have owned camper.

So now they say they want to do a "Seal Tech Pressure Test". To determine if there are leaks. What the heck is that?

Bottom line, it looks like the insurance company is trying to find an excuse to not pay for the repair. Estimate was $5500 by the inspector looked at it. Now, different tune.

Sorry, feeling a little frustrated, I guess it is time to call a lawyer, but, anybody got any advice?

This is an ultra lite camper with no ceiling beams. Just the laminated foam type ceiling. My guess is the weight caused the foam to break or the laminations (glue) to fail...thus causing my problem.

Anybody got any advice or ideas? Am I getting hosed by the insurance company? Never had a claim before till now! UGG!

[hotbyte]

Thanks bid_time. It seems lately I've seen several topics here and on boating forums where something that someone stated gets twisted or some fact off and before long the topic has ran multiple pages and way off-track.

[bid_time]

hotbyte wrote:

bid_time wrote:
So hotbyte, the solution I proposed should be a no brainer then.

I made NO comment about your suggested solution. I only pointed out that you had incorrectly paraphrased what OP said.

Yes I was wrong about what he said.

[hotbyte]

I totally agree with you, sacmarata. The insurance company sent out a representative of their choosing to inspect and make a determination of covered damages, if any. Their back peddling is totally screwing the customer.

[bid_time]

sacmarata wrote:

bid_time wrote:
From all of your description, no cracking, can push up on the ceiling, etc., etc., I think what you are describing is water damage. There is no other way the top can remain in place and the underneath sag. You say the glue became unbonded, I'll bet it did, because the wood become damaged by water. The reason you never saw any sign of the leak - because the wood soaked up the water, and/or what didn't soak in ran off down the walls.

In any event, the answer to your dilemma is really quit simple and doesn't involve a lawyer. Agree to take the ceiling down, if no water damage is evident they pay, if it is, you pay. If everything is as you say you got nothing to lose. If you do have a leak, you need to know it and fix it.

Why should the OP be the one to take the ceiling down? The insurer is the ones who already sent an inspector who deemed it to be covered. If they wanna back peddle, then the onus should be on them.

The OP said there was a long delay after the original determination. Just imagine what the insurer would do if the OP had a long delay in payment. They expect their premiums, the OP should expect service!

So let the insurance company take the ceiling down. Who takes the ceiling down is immaterial.

[hotbyte]

bid_time wrote:
So hotbyte, the solution I proposed should be a no brainer then.

I made NO comment about your suggested solution. I only pointed out that you had incorrectly paraphrased what OP said.

[sacmarata]

bid_time wrote:
From all of your description, no cracking, can push up on the ceiling, etc., etc., I think what you are describing is water damage. There is no other way the top can remain in place and the underneath sag. You say the glue became unbonded, I'll bet it did, because the wood become damaged by water. The reason you never saw any sign of the leak - because the wood soaked up the water, and/or what didn't soak in ran off down the walls.

In any event, the answer to your dilemma is really quit simple and doesn't involve a lawyer. Agree to take the ceiling down, if no water damage is evident they pay, if it is, you pay. If everything is as you say you got nothing to lose. If you do have a leak, you need to know it and fix it.

Why should the OP be the one to take the ceiling down? The insurer is the ones who already sent an inspector who deemed it to be covered. If they wanna back peddle, then the onus should be on them.

The OP said there was a long delay after the original determination. Just imagine what the insurer would do if the OP had a long delay in payment. They expect their premiums, the OP should expect service!

[bid_time]

So hotbyte, the solution I proposed should be a no brainer then.

[hotbyte]

bid_time wrote:
From all of your description, no cracking, can push up on the ceiling, etc., etc., I think what you are describing is water damage. There is no other way the top can remain in place and the underneath sag.

This is NOT what OP said is happening. He said when he pushes up on the ceiling, the roof pushes up as well. Below quote is from one of his replies in this thread.

Am also going to take a video of the outside roof while I am pushing on the inside ceiling. You can visibly see the roof rise up and down.

And this from his original post.

Ceiling (roof) is now sagging from the weight of the snow this past winter. I can physically move the ceiling up and down about 3 inches with my hands. When I say ceiling I mean roof and all.

[bid_time]

From all of your description, no cracking, can push up on the ceiling, etc., etc., I think what you are describing is water damage. There is no other way the top can remain in place and the underneath sag. You say the glue became unbonded, I'll bet it did, because the wood become damaged by water. The reason you never saw any sign of the leak - because the wood soaked up the water, and/or what didn't soak in ran off down the walls.

In any event, the answer to your dilemma is really quit simple and doesn't involve a lawyer. Agree to take the ceiling down, if no water damage is evident they pay, if it is, you pay. If everything is as you say you got nothing to lose. If you do have a leak, you need to know it and fix it.

[JiminDenver]

I just found out that it doesn't take much to get a rv totalled. They will once the repair hits 70 percent of the value.

[PamfromVA]

Am I the only one wondering how much this camper is actually worth??? It is 13 years old and they may have to total it and give you a check for whatever the blue book value is - if it can be found.

[kcmoedoe]

The more likely reason for the delays in paying is the insurance company is having a hard time justifying that the damage was actually caused by a covered event (storm, accident, meteor strike etc.) and is not just poor construction and general rot and deterioration which is not covered by insurance. The fact that the rig was unattended and the loss reported long after the actual event occurred would definitely raise a red flag.

[Matt_Colie]

In my experience with damage to the boats that I have kept (not owned, but maintained for the owner), that this will go to court. They may try to claim their "Named Storm" exclusion and I can't begin to tell you how a judge will go with that. But you had best be ready to have all your ducks lined up.

Matt

[noplace2]

You appear to not wish to name the insurer. Why is that?

[NJRVer]

That seems like a poor design for a roof.
It is similar to a SIP used in sticks and bricks homes. The difference being in a S&B they aren't used in what amounts to a flat/very low pitch roofs. Then on top of that channel out the foam for ducting which would weaken it more.
I can easily see this not holding up to the weight of a large snow load especially if the snow is wet or starts melting and refreezing.

I would be curious as to what the manufacturer specs out the snow load rating of their roof design.