In my dotage have become pretty much a "live and let live" guy. I don't rock the boat too much, as it seems to always end up in more problems and anxiety.
I think the word is flabbergasted... Work to begin in two weeks, on a roof that looked fine to me. Total cost will be the $500 deductible.
Since the house was built in 2001, it means that the roof was just 15 years old. I thought that the insurance would cover depreciated cost. Not so... an entire new roof, with some upgrades which weren't required when the house was built... (ice/water shield).
The estimate included details for all repairs, including moving furniture, paint shielding, base coats, clean up etc...
I had anticipated a quick inspection and the adjuster to tell me that there wasn't enough damage to qualify. Impossible to see any damage at all on the roof, from the ground, and even looking at the shingles, no obvious damage as in holes, dents, or cracks.
At the least, I had expected to pay for a prorated portion of the damage, based on the age. As it turns out, I'll have anew roof, which, when we sell, should add substantial value.
So... if they raise my rates by a few hundred dollars a year, there'll be no quarrel. Am I satisfied with my insurance company? We've had them since 1978, and have been forever satisfied.
which I think is a big difference. If my roof had been 15 years old I may not have even called the insurance as my deductible was 750. My roof is less than 3 years old.
I guess i'm peeved about the assumption that if I make 1 claim I will make another and raising my rates based on that assumption.
Now considering I've had allstate for about 30 years lol since I was a newlywed and this is my first claim, how come the reverse assumption is not made. I don't have a discount every year for non use??
I guess I dislike the entire premise. You supposedly buy insurance of any kind for protection, yet if you use the so call "good hands", IMO they slap you