Home Insurance Claim Cash Settlement

Hello OzBargainers, happy Friday!

I had a question about cash settlement for one of the items in a home insurance claim that I did with NRMA. Are there any things that I should consider or know before accepting the cash settlement?

A bit of a backstory:

The cash settlement was for one of the outdoor polycarbonate sheets that was damaged due to hail last year. I have been trying to get NRMA to fix it and a few other stuff that was damaged. It has taken almost 7 months to get all the other stuff fixed and for the polycarbonate sheet, I have been told that the roof is under the minimum recommended pitch. I got a few independent contractors to look into and provide quotes who said that the insurance folks are just screwing with me on it. So I did ask for reviews which took almost 3-4 months to get to a stage where they are agreeing to a cash settlement.

I am not 100% convinced that it covers the damage done or matches with the quote I got from independent roof contractors but it is close enough and I now just want this to get done with so want to accept the cash settlement. I wonder if this impacts anything in the future in terms of claims I can do. Is there anyone here with a similar experience and how you dealt with it? Is there anything I need to be aware of before formally accepting the cash settlement?

Thanks for reading and your help.

Cheers,
Dr-SL

Comments

  • +1

    What does the agreement say ? We have been offered a cash settlement for ceiling damage in the big rains in QLD but a very specific part of it says we must get a qualified roofer to 'fix the roof' otherwise there will be issues with future claims. The stupid thing is both the drone operatore AND a guy from the building/repairs group who got up on the roof could not find any evidence of cracked tile or other issue that could be fixed. They both suggested heavy winds had lifted the tiles and during which, water had got in as the drains were insufficient to cope with downpour.

  • Done it several times, usually when insurer finds it cost too much going through their own channel they'll pass the ball to you to do the hard work yourself. If you get someone qualified to do the work and have documented evidence then there's nothing to worry about.

    • Great thanks @Igacb08 that's a relief to hear. Will probably call them up and accept the offer now

  • +1

    outdoor polycarbonate sheets that was damaged due to hail last year.

    Surely your excess was more than this?

    A trip to Bunnings and an hour of your time couldn't repair it?

    • It sounds like it was all part of a larger quote,

      But yes i completely agree. I'd value my time more than the OP.

    • +1

      Yes, it seems doable. However, I wanted to get it fixed along with the roof pitch increase and along with replacing it with fibre glass instead of polycarbonate. It seems like a minor job but it is not entirely

  • Quite common.

    Sounds like their trades won’t touch it because they can’t fix something which won’t conform to current standards.

    In your circumstances I think it’s fine.

    In general though, can be better to get insurance to do the job because in many cases the job will get under quoted to win the business, so you might end up with less money than is required to do the job if “more” problems are later found or also needed to be fixed… think water and fire damage where not all required works are known from visual inspection

  • +1

    I had similar where my poly sheets were damaged by hail, but they would not repair due to the pergola not meeting standards. I believe in my case it was due to the batons not having some sort of tie downs.

    I took the money and replaced the sheets myself, took the opportunity to give it a paint as well. It cost me a lot less then the insurance payout.

    • Thanks. I’m hoping to do the same now. Will be a little DIY project to get it done.

  • +1

    Yep, standard practice. Went through a claim process with NRMA for storm damage to my unit (damaged carpets, rugs, some furniture pieces etc) they got quotes for everything (so did I) and then said it was up to me whether I wanted to go with their suppliers or accept the cash equivalent and do things myself. Took the cash settlement and ended up ahead (even after excess payment).

  • +1

    I'm noticing that insurers just want to be done with the claim due to the lack of tradies to fix thing and will just tempt you with a cash payment - so that:

    1. you don't realise the true cost of the repair
    2. don't realise how long it will take to fix it or the extent of the issue

    source: cynical bastard from the canberra hail storm

    • That’s pretty much it. I’m kind of want to be done with it as well. I’ve ballpark of how much the true cost is. The cash settlement is slightly less than the quote I got but it’s just that as a I want to meet the insurer in the middle than getting pushed over with this.

  • +1

    Once you agree then anything to do with the incident (hail damage that occurred on that date) cannot be claimed again or amended or changed in anyway.

    • Thanks. But we can claim for any future damage to the same area?

      • Yes, but you may have issues if you do not have evidence that it was fully repaired. I have no idea what evidence you would need to ensure that the insurance company does not say it was per-existing or not fixed properly if you get another incident that affects the same area.

Login or Join to leave a comment