Re: No insurance money, no contract awarded

Numerous postings in this thread properly express concerns about what appears to be a dilatory insurance claim payment, but there are several inaccuracies contained in some of the comments.

First of all, I qualify my own comments on the fact that I have not reviewed the specific policy provisions, so my thoughts are offered in context of general insurance discussion.

In principle, I share Commissioner Randall’s reported feelings that the insurance payment is probably tardy.

Chris Callaway is correct in relating that if there were coverage issues involved, the insurer should have offered timely “Reservation of Rights” communications to protect their interests from waiver and estoppel entrapment. By not having done so, it would appear that the Lobato Trestle claim remains in line for payment.

I disagree with Chris in his assertion that negligence of an insured might bar recovery for the loss. One of the biggest perils covered by first party property insurance is STUPIDITY. Additionally, there is suggestion that arson might somehow disqualify the fire claim from payment. Wrong! I challenge Chris, or anyone else to show me an “arson exclusion” in ANY fire insurance policy. The only requirement is that a “loss” must be accidental and fortuitous to the “named insured(s)”

It was reasonable for an insurer to defer payment until the extent of damages were determined. Nevertheless, this task was seemingly accomplished last fall, and publicly at least, thee was no indication that the insurer was contesting the fact that the damages exceeded the policy limits.

That said, there is probably nothing needed other than a few phone calls to expedite the insurance claim payment. The obligations of the insurance carrier are prescribed by contract, and depending on the nature of the risk carrier, their claim handling performance is likely regulated under New Mexico Code 59 A-16-20.