Sunday, January 9, 2011
JANUARY 6 BROWN & BROWN INSURANCE LETTER
It wasn’t until this weekend that I read Ty Beba’s letter from Brown & Brown that was given out at Friday’s delegates meeting. It seemed very thorough to me and something all residents should have in hand to read. Assuming it has been vetted by the Insurance Company for accuracy, don’t you think a copy of this should go in the UCO Reporter?
I have one question about a point in the letter. Mr. Beba says “In addition, some of the [old] coverage terms were noted to be substantially different than what was thought to be purchased. For instance, the Wind Deductible from 2% of each building’s value to ½% of each building’s value had a Minimum Deductible of $1,000,000. That would have meant that this policy would not have provided any coverage until after the Associations would have paid the first $1,000,000 in claims.”
Does this really mean what I think it does? Our association paid a lot of money under the old, Dan Gladstone/Plastridge-arranged insurances for the second Buy Down, which lowered our deductible from 2% (after the first Buy Down) to ½%. With our 26-unit three buildings being worth $1.7 million, 2% meant we were responsible for $34,000 (the deductible). With ½% I thought it meant we were responsible for only $8500, a far more manageable amount. (Forget for the moment reliance on the $2000 coverages in homeowner’s coverages.) If a windstorm caused $70,000 in damage repairs, we would have to come up with only $8500; the insurance would pay the remaining $61,500. That's what I THOUGHT.
Mr. Beba’s letter seems to say that the second Buy Down would have provided NO COVERAGE unless the total damage to the condo buildings exceeded $1 million!! I would think the likelihood of damage exceeding $1 million almost nil! It makes the second Buy Down we paid good money for almost WORTHLESS! This is incredible!
Or do I misunderstand? I note that Mr. Beba says “until after the Associations [plural] have paid the first $1,000,000 in claims.” He’s not saying that the coverage for our three buildings is somehow tied to overall damage to ALL the Village’s buildings, is he? The only other explanation I can think of is that there are too many zeroes in the deductible amount in Mr. Beba’s letter. But he repeats this amount of $1 million, so I doubt this.
Unless I misunderstand, this means we were victims of a VERY costly rip-off under Gladstone-Plastridge concerning this second deductible.
Can anyone clarify this for me on the blog? Dan Gladstone? Chuck Knudson? Ty Beba? Toni Salometo? Is Mr. Beba saying what I think he is saying?