QLD: Insurer offer to pay cash for repairing house damage by storm. What to do?!?

I have a property for rent via agent in QLD. Recently part of the roof was blown off by a storm and the insurer arranged their contractor to assess the damage.

Now the contractor contacted me and said that "the repair cannot be warranted as the existing structure is not suitable for an eclosed room". They therefore offered a cash settlement for me to arrange the repair myself with a total amount based on their builder's quotation.

This is so weird to my understanding. Have any of you guys encountered such cases before and what could be your advice?

 

It’s actually pretty common.. it’s probably within your insurance policy pds that it’s not the ins co responsibility to bring your entire structure up to current code.. I don’t see why it should be? Especially if it’s not council approved.. but I guess they chose to insure it.

 

It sounds to me like the structure is not up to current standards. If that's the case the insurer is erring on the generous side. Take the money.

 

Hi Vbplease,

Thanks for your feedback. My question: what happens if the actual repair cost is more or less than the amount they offer? And if the repair cannot be warranted as they said, then if there's another damage later in the future, how can I possibly get a claim?

 

It doesn't matter if the actual repair cost is more or less, you are lucky to get anything.
You will be unlikely to make another claim until the structure is fixed to a modern standard and approved by council.

 

Sometimes they offer the cash payment ,it happened to me a while back with a hail damaged roof ,but what they offered would not cover the internal painting water damage plus the the total replacement of the roof..And that was from one of the insurances companies contractors who started with the roof was too old as he punched a massive hole in one rusted roof sheet that was less the six years old..I said no and after a lot of stress they ended up fixing everything,just be carefull with this it can work both ways..imho..

 

You are lucky to get anything.

When the insurance company does the repair, they have to guarantee their work. If the roofing trusses are unsuitable to support the roof, they won’t do the repairs. You can’t expect them to replace existing defective work to the standard necessary to adequately support the new roof.

Take the money before they change their minds.
Marg

 

Tell the insurer you need a few days to consider their offer
Get an independent quote for the works so you are informed
Then act accordingly

 

Hi guys,

Thank you all for your comments.
I'd like to know further that: is it mandatory to repair the damage up to the current building code? Can I just get it done like previous condition (before the damage)? It is an old house that complies with old standards.
I want to have a better understanding so as to talk with some builders.

 

If you were living in it, what would you do?

Do you feel safe living there under ‘old standards’

 

You're lucky they offered anything for an eclosed room.

 

No reputable builder will perform sub standard work.
Marg

 

You will have to fix it to current code.

 

Hi guys,

Totally agree that the repairs should be safe to live in. Btw, do you have any recommendations of good builders in the area of Logan City, QLD?

Thanks

 

Possibly full tax deduction may influence the final choice

 

Would anyone be able to refer me to a good builder?
I asked this question in a separate thread too; but haven't got a reference so far. I really want to fix the damage properly in order to avoid future problems.

 

Contact Master Builders Association for a reputable builder. Your insurer may be able to recommend someone they use (check credentials).

 

Hi Hoan

You could also just look on hi pages if no one on the forum can suggest someone. Check the licence and insurance.

It’s worth noting that 'master builder' isn’t actually a qualification - just marketing by the Master Builders Association for builders with normal building qualifications.

If you used one of their members (or the competition HIA's members) and they stuffed up badly, they might be chucked out of the association (according to my builder friend who has been a member of both) buts that's as far as it goes.

Both organisations work for their building practioner members - providing legal advice etc - rather than on behalf of clients.

 

True, but the likelihood of getting a dodgy builder who is a member is lower than just using the whitepages.

 

If you're doing renovations of a certain significance, then you have to renovate to current code - and I'm pretty sure that in your situation you would have to, yes. (From memory it's if the retail value of the works are above $11,000.) That's probably why the insurer paid you out, because additional work beyond the scope of the damage is required, and they're not going to pay for or project manage the additional works you're required to do.

Technically, that's true.

I think the insurer is trying to do you a favour. If you manage to find a tradie who's willing to "only" do the scope of works covered by the insurance payout, then that's your good luck. But the insurer can't be seen to be participating in that themselves, as 1) they know it's not technically legal and 2) they have to warrant the work.