Submitted by SurfCityTom on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 5:04am.
but the issue was not that there was no damage. There was.
The issue was the follow up investigation, which can take time, revealed the cause of loss, toilet overflow, was self inflicted. Meaning she did it with the intent to collect for damages she caused.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, policy terms and North Carolina statutes limit the amount of time the Insurance Company has to make the initial investigation and write a check or deny the claim. IN this case, with the clock ticking the Carrier wrote the check and did some follow up investigation which led to the DOI being called in for assistance.
Sorry Das
but the issue was not that there was no damage. There was.
The issue was the follow up investigation, which can take time, revealed the cause of loss, toilet overflow, was self inflicted. Meaning she did it with the intent to collect for damages she caused.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, policy terms and North Carolina statutes limit the amount of time the Insurance Company has to make the initial investigation and write a check or deny the claim. IN this case, with the clock ticking the Carrier wrote the check and did some follow up investigation which led to the DOI being called in for assistance.