 |
I am buying a house in Canada, although I still live and own a small house in USA.
The house recently caught fire with substantial damage; it is insured according to Canadian up to $22,000.
The insurance company says my share of repairs will be about $125,000, but somehow I do not have enough money..
I worry that the Canadian bank could take my house and car in Wisconsin to pay for these repairs. Very worried.
Transnational law, insurance law...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danety
If it is reduced to a Judgment, yes, it can be enforced on either side of the Border.
It's a relatively simple matter of filing it in the "other" Country.
You cannot cross a border and become Judgment-proof, and people try to do just that.
You had only $22,000 worth of insurance and the uninsured damage was $125,000? Seems odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danety
You just keep paying the loan, it will not be foreclosed if you pay the monthly loan
Thak you for your response. I guess I was not clear. What the Canadian bank MAy be able to do is to seize my (paid-for) Wisconsin house and old car to pay for repairs to the Canadian house (the Canadian bank holds the mortgage thereto.) I cannot think why I would be liable, as I carried insurance for the house, as required by Canadian law.
The insurance company seems to be ignoring my $225,000 insurance for the house.
Contractor estimates $100,000 cost to repair. The insurance company wants me pay about $40,000, which this retired and disabled teacher does not have. Sob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danety
If you are asking if a Judgment in one Country can be enforced in another (in this case US/Canada) the answer is yes.
The mortgage company/insurance company or whichever is "wanting" you to pay $40,000 cannot just swoop down on you.
I don't understand how a mortgaged house can be so underinsured. I think that's what's got "us" confused.
Perhaps the retired and disabled teacher will be forced to give up one of her homes in order to save the other.
Thank you for the information; I was afraid of that.
In regard to the insurance the house is insured for some $220,000--whatever is required by Canadian law. (It is just one of those ordinary 2 1/2 storey older houses found in small towns.) The house has always been rented out, as I cannot now move any furniture, and Candian immigration frowns on Americans moving up and needing medical care. I could not now manage mortgae payments on my own. While the house is hardly "mine," I like the sly truth in your last line. You may well be right! If only the insurance company would move toward repairs and get the renters back home by Christmas. (company's timeline.)
Again, thank you. I need and appreciate any information and/or advice: French and German literatures knock my socks off, but when it comes to practicalites... Sigh.
Sounds like time for an attorney to move against the insurance company??
I did not know I could do that. You clearly know the law better than I do. I am trying to locate an attorney in Nova Scotia. If anyone is interested, I'll send an update.
Thank you for advice. Your sharing it is much appreciated!
Janet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danety
I'd ask the insurance company what section of the policy allows them to pay a percentage of the loss - and I'd ask for an exact quote.
This is the reason there are independent adjusters, by the way.
And I get called in every once in a while, too.
"What section allows...? Exact quote?"
(I had actually heard of independent adjusters, courtesy of a friend's brother.) And I do now possibly have a couple of attorneys in Nova Scotia to telephone. But they are not independent adjusters, are they?
Do you by any chance extend your practice to Canada??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danety
I've worked in Canada, never NS.
I have never seen an independent adjuster who didn't earn his/her fee and THEN some, ever.
There has to be something in the policy that makes the company think they can pay just a small percentage of the actual loss. I'm curious if they don't believe the estimates, think you caused the damage, something else.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the adjuster is worth his/her weight!
The policy is limited to actual cash value as it is rented. Canadian law, I am told.
it was the renters who caused the fire--a frayed cord on a fan! Sob.
You are an attorney, I gather. Could you tell me where you paractice and what kind of law?
I do not mean to be inquisitive; I am information-gathering. Your point about getting some informed help is well-taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danety
No, I'm not - I'm an investigator, primarily a liability investigator, almost always Plaintiff work. I run across independent investigators who handle damage claims all the time, but this is not something that I do.
So they are talking actual cash value, not the cost of repairs? For example, if the repairs to your car are $10,000 but the value of the car is $5,000 you would get the $5,000 - full value. Do I have that right?
It's starting to come together - I hear this argument all the time concerning motor vehicle accidents. And, yes, that is how homeowner's insurance/fire/theft is written - at least in the US. Your only option (if I am understanding you) is to argue a higher value than has been assigned.
Am I in the ballpark?
First, it seems there were some typos in your initial posts. As I understand it now, the House was insured for $220,000 (not $22,000). The estimated cost of repairs is $100K (you originally said ($125K).
Was there a deductible? That might account for the $40K. Do you have any equity in the house? You may be able to borrow against that for the repairs. What about the tenants? If this was their fault, did they have insurance or can you sue them for your share of the repairs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
All I saw was "The insurance company says my share of repairs will be about $125,000 ..." I don't know which figures are right and which are wrong.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:09 PM. |