Conference 7.286::home_work

    I had metpay when I leased a condo:
    
    Personal property (20,000) , Additioanl exp (10,000), Credit card
    (1,000), Personal Liability (100,000), Mediacl ea. pers (1,000),
    Payments ea Accident (25,000) 500 feet from Hydrant, central fire
    alarm ,
    
    Annual Premium: $285.00 1984 rates, in Mass 100 deductible.
    
    Best thing to do, is get a few estimates.  COnsumer Reports
    did n "evaluation" on Insurance Companies within the past year or
    so ( Insurance, Homeowners pg 473   AUg '85).
    
    Bob
    _btw_ Metpays Homeowners Insurance is relativley cheaper than condo
    Insurance.  Also,some "christian mutual" companies give good discounts
    if you are non_smoker, Non_drinker.
    

    	I looked into getting renters insurance from metpay.  It all
    depends on how much valuable stuff you have.  The minimum policy
    that they offer is $15,000 for personal property.  The metpay person
    told me that they do not offer the best renters insurance and that
    I should look elsewhere.  I ended up putting an exact replacement
    rider on my folks policy and winging it.

    
    Mike, 
    
    	I don't remeber the exacts, but .1 is real close.  
    For my condo in Nashua, It costs me 105$ a year.  Pretty cheap eh?

                                                   
    						.dave.
    
    IHS

    I have homeowners' from Metpay also,just about the same coverage
    as is .1. I'm paying about the same also.One interesting note,when
    we closed on the house in Jan.,the bank wanted on years' premiums
    paid in full,now they are taking escrow money out for next years
    and it amounts to about $100 more than Metpay costs,and they won't
    let me have Met take it out of my pay weekly. They claim they will
    pay it out of the escrow and refund the rest.COMFED is the place
    to stay away from. See my note in CONSUMERS about them.
    
    	Steve
    
    

    I would just send them enough escrow to cover the cost.  Also,
    I'd enclose a copy of your Metpay bill to show them that's
    the cost.  They'll change it eventually.
    Anybody else ever had a problem with a bank wanting more in 
    escrow per week than needed?
    

    I tried not paying them other exhorbitant fees,but they claim their
    "computer" kicks out the payment as not being paid in full,and they
    end up demanding full payment until the escrow accounts are review-
    ed. Hey Zip, I know you read this file,why not add your heartfelt
    sympathies for our good friends at COMFED.
    
    	Steve
    

FYI: CONSUMER notes file recommends AMICA very highly - see CONSUMER 
notes 70 & 222 for details.  However, I have a different question 
(also posted there)....

Do people usually get:

"Broad" - named Perils only  (HO-2)
"Special" All-risk on dwelling, named perils on contents (HO-3)
	or
"Comprehensive"  All-risk on dwelling & contents (HO-5)

			?

Any thoughts/experience on the advantages/disadvantages of these?

My tendency, insuring for catastrophic losses only, 
would be to go for the HO-2 or maybe the HO-3.

		Your thoughts?

				thanx/j

    I need to obtain a Builders Risk Insurance policy to cover for fire,
    theft, vandals, etc. during construction of my house. 
    
    Any ideas, suggestions, recommendations on what to look for from
    those who have done this before?
    
    I would also appreciate recommendations for insurance agents who
    carry this type of coverage in the Bolton, MA. area. I tried my
    insurance company (AMICA) and they don't carry it. Neither does
    METPAY.
    
    					Mark
    

    Mark....Allstate Insurance...nationwide carries builders risk. It
    covers materials built into your house during construction....not
    materials on the site waiting to be used.
    
    Consider liability insurance for accidents.....Allstate can provide
    this.
    
    Also consider Workman's Compensation....which is carried to cover
    disabilities to subcontractors. If a general contractor is doing
    your house insist that he have workman's comp....ask for proof.
    If you are subcontracting out work....you should carry this insurance.
    You'll have to arrange this through and independent insurance
    agent....not Allstate.
    
    Pete Ferguson....Luneburg MA ....Allstate agent can answer general
    questions you may have on these topics. See Allstate listing for
    Lunenburg.
    
    john mollica
    

    Somebody actually RECOMMENDING Allstate?
    
    Now, THERE's a first...

    When we built we used Sentry. The policy actually matured into a
    standard policy after completion. Dennis Lex was the fellows name
    that sold it to us. He built his own house out in the midwest, so
    he knew the inside tract.
    
    He traveled to where I work in Hudson, Mass to discuss it. We now
    have Metpay (cheaper, from the remarks I pick up, probably an unwise
    move).

    Steve

    An insurance agent travelled from the MID-WEST to HUDSON MA. to sell an
    insurance policy ?!?!?!? I know these guys are usually vultures but
    that takes the cake!
    
    Charly 

    I am presently paying a monthly insurance tacked on to my mortgage
    payment to the bank. This was a bank requirement as, at the time
    of purchase I was unable to put down more than 10%.  Had I been
    able to put 20% down no payment would have been necessary.
    
    At present, due to the escalation of home prices over the past couple
    of years, I owe probably less than 50 % of the value of the house
    to the bank.
    
    My question is this.  Has anyone out there been able to get out
    of the monthly insurance payments with the bank using the arguement
    that they now own more than the required 20 %?????  If yes,  how
    did you do it????

This is covered in tallis::REAL_ESTATE.

I don't know the topic numbers.

    There are a couple of ways to go about it.  Talk to the bank and
    see if you can get the PMI cancelled on the grounds that you own
    50% of the house.  If they say NO, then look into re-mortgaging.
    Re-mortgaging is guaranteed to work.  What is your interest rate?
    Maybe you should have re-mortgaged already?  I re-mortgaged after
    a year and a half to get a lower interest rate and to dump the PMI.
    
    Stan

  
    Why do you want to get rid of home owners insurance??? 

>    Why do you want to get rid of home owners insurance??? 

Not homeowner's insurance, mortgage insurance.  It's a little extra to cover
them in case you default.  Essentially, it means that they really charged a 
higher interest rate for the 10% down, but by calling it 'mortgage insurance' 
they were able to advertise it at a lower rate.

Many mortgage insurance policies have one nice feature of actually being like
another life insurance policy.  If you die, the whole mortgage is cancelled and
your heirs get the house free of lein.

Paul

    re: last
    
      That may be in some cases but I haven't heard of that.  If by
    mortgage insurance you mean private mortgage insurance (pmi), that 
    only covers the difference between 20% of the banks appraisal and
    your down payment (which is less than 20% or you wouldn't be required
    to get pmi).  
    
    -Jim
    

On a similar note, if you get solicited from the bank to buy mortgage
insurance so that if you die the mortgage gets paid off, don't do it.
In the words of a banker friend of mine, buy regular term insurance,
it will be cheaper, and give your loved ones an option to pay off the 
house if they want too.  The other way, there is no choice.  Say your
mortgage is at 8.75% and the rates to borrow at the time of death are
18%, paying off the mortgage would be a bad financial decision.

Brad.

>                                                         Say your
>  mortgage is at 8.75% and the rates to borrow at the time of death are
>  18%, paying off the mortgage would be a bad financial decision.

You're assuming that they'll have to go borrow money for something.  
There's no benefit to paying a low interest rate when you could be paying 
*no* interest rate.  

Amoung the financially clever, it's always a great thing to leave free 
cash and let the survivors do the smart thing.  However, in many cases 
the people who receive the money are either naive or unscrupulous, and 
it's gone in less than a year.  If your survivors are not likely to be 
clever in the use of money, it's probably a better idea to leave a paid 
off house and a smaller chunk of cash.

Insurance is one of those things that has to be tailored to the 
individual and their circumstances.  It's pointless to say that a 
particular instrument is *always* a bad choice or *always* a good 
choice.
					>>>==>PStJTT

>There's no benefit to paying a low interest rate when you could be paying 
>*no* interest rate.  

How about taking the 50000 dollars (or whatever), and investing at the
higher current interest rates, making more money than your paying
out.  Also, every year of the policy, the payments stay the same
for both types of insurance.  Straight term insurance will always have
the same payoff, a mortgage insurance will always have a smaller 
payoff year after year because the principle balance decreases each year.

>Amoung the financially clever, it's always a great thing to leave free 
>cash and let the survivors do the smart thing.  However, in many cases 
>the people who receive the money are either naive or unscrupulous, and 
>it's gone in less than a year.  If your survivors are not likely to be 
>clever in the use of money, it's probably a better idea to leave a paid 
>off house and a smaller chunk of cash.

Usually the beneficiary is a spouse, so I doubt being unscrupulous would
apply, and if both died, whether the house was paid off or not wouldn't
matter.  An unscrupulous relative would just sell it.  Who ever inherited 
the estate would still end up with less money, see above.

>Insurance is one of those things that has to be tailored to the 
>individual and their circumstances.  It's pointless to say that a 
>particular instrument is *always* a bad choice or *always* a good 
>choice.

You sound like an insurance salesman.  Mortgage insurance is a ripoff,
at least in any state (like Massachusetts) where you can get cheap
term insurance from banks.

Brad.

>  How about taking the 50000 dollars (or whatever), and investing at the
>  higher current interest rates, making more money than your paying 
>  out. 

Fine for you, but I've had to pitch in and clean up after people who 
didn't know how to do that.  Often a spouse doesn't know enough not to 
spend it or give it away.  Many times even if they do know, they're 
emotionally incapable of making sound decisions for a while after the 
death of their mate.  Young people often don't understand that a new 
Camero doesn't pay off at "the higher current interest rate."

Sometimes the financially savy mate sets things up so the money goes to 
a lawyer or administrator who *does* know how to make sound investments. 
It's a good thought, but that's where the unscrupulous people get into 
the picture.  

>                                    Mortgage insurance is a ripoff,
>  at least in any state (like Massachusetts) where you can get cheap
>  term insurance from banks.

It's fortunate  that you know the correct answer for all people, all
circumstances and at all times.  Not everyone is so clever.  Personally,
I've always considered term insurance to be a ripoff, but that's just
because of my personal circumstances.  Since you disagree that insurance
needs are different for different people, I don't expect you to
understand or agree with that. 

No, I don't sell insurance.  Nor do I advise people whose needs and
circumstances I don't understand how to arrange their lives. 

					>>>==>PStJTT

>It's fortunate  that you know the correct answer for all people, all
>circumstances and at all times.  Not everyone is so clever.  Personally,
>I've always considered term insurance to be a ripoff, but that's just
>because of my personal circumstances.  Since you disagree that insurance
>needs are different for different people, I don't expect you to
>understand or agree with that. 
>No, I don't sell insurance.  Nor do I advise people whose needs and
>circumstances I don't understand how to arrange their lives. 

You talk nice, but offer no substance.  When did I disagree that
insurance needs are different for different people??  Sure they are, but in
this case, as I have stated before, Mortgage Life Ins. is ripoff,
and I proceeded to say why.  If you think term ins is bad, fine, tells us 
why, maybe you know something others don't.  I have been blitzed by an 
insurance company telling what a great deal I am passing up by not buying 
insurance.  This insurance is about twice what a regular term policy would cost.
All I was trying to point out to anyone who might be interested is an
alternative to Mortgage Life Ins exists.  What's so 'clever' about that??

Brad.

    
   Please take it to soapbox (if it still exists), guys!
    

    This past year, we wrote a letter to our mortgage company asking
    that PMI be removed from the mortgage.  Their answer (a form letter
    by the way) was that in order for the PMI to be removed, the following
    two conditions must be met:
    
    	The loan must be at least 3 years old
    
    	The loan-to-value ratio must be less than 80% from the ORIGINAL
    	appraisal.
    
    Needless to say, the house that we paid $240K for in November 85
    is now worth substantially more.  (especially with the work taht
    has been done on the house)  Since they refused to remove the PMI,
    we refinanced the house.  It's sort of funny.  They payment went
    down almost $400.00 per month, the  house was appraised at 'over
    $320K, and we borrowed the original purchase price, thus taking
    our money out of the place.  
    
    I then wrote a nasty note to Firemans Fund Mortgage telling them
    that their rules were rediculous and that  even though our mortgage
    was 'small potatoes' to them, it was a lot of money to me and that
    they shouldn't treat 'good' customers who pay on time the way that
    they did.
    
    
    Good luck, you probably won't be able to do it
    
    -bill

	Our mortgage company isn't so strict (for lack of a better word).

	When I called to ask them what we have to do to get rid of PMI,
	she told me to get an appraisal of the property from one of the 
	3 appraisal companies they deal with, and if the appraised amount
	shows you have more than 20% equity in the house, submit the 
	appraisal with a letter and they will drop the PMI.

	I haven't done this yet, since the appraisal costs ~$400.00 
	so I'm planning on doing this during the summer.

	Good luck!
	-- Jim

    Re .13
    
    This is exactly what to do!  And why do you have to deal with *their*
    appraiser??  Aren't all appraisers certified?  Just find a cheapie
    and present them with the report.  Take them to court (saber rattle)
    if they don't go for it.  
    
    The best way of course, is to line it up *before* you sign the
    mortgage: tell them that when the mortgage reaches 80% that you
    *expect* PMI to be dropped after the appraisal is submitted.
    
    Larry  @.@
            -
    

    
    
    An important fact to remember is that you must have 20% of the
    new appraised value of the property not 20% of what you bought for.
    In other words:
    
         $125,000 loan with $14,000 down,  mortgage of $111,000
    
         property appraised at $137,000
    
         means your equity is now $137,000-111,000=26,000
         
         But you still only own  26,000/137,000=18.9%
     
         So you don't own 20% of the new appraised value even though
          you own 26,000/125,000=20.8% of the original loan value.
        
         We learned this the hard way. 
    
         IT IS DEFINETLY WORTH GETTING RID OF PMI, IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE.
         OURS WAS $40/MONTH (LESS THAN A YEAR TO PAY BACK THE COST OF
         THE APPRAISAL).
     
         I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT IT'S CHEAPER TO REFINANCE THAN TO GET
         AN APPRAISAL.  OURS COST $250.
                        

I am building a home in Leominster MA. and I am going to be my own contractor.
I found a contractor who I want to frame, side and roof the house. I know him,
have got good referances and the price is right. The problem? He is not insured.
He is going to hire 3 other people to work for him. 
How can I handle this? If he signs a waiver saying that I am not liable for any
injuries to him or his people will that hold up in court?
Most of the people I will be hiring (plumbers, electricians) will be insured
and with certificates. My dad will be doing some work and my wife and I will
do the painting and insulating.

I find insurance and liability confusing and irritating 
How much will construction insurance cost? and what can I expect it to cover?

Go to your (or find a) regular home insurance outfit, like State Farm or,
as in .1?, All-State.  They'll ask you the value of the finished house, and
basically start charging you for a builder's risk policy, at approximately
the rates you'll be paying later for homeowner's insurance.  Our builder's
risk thing rolled right into basic homeowner's when we moved in.

re>                             <<< Note 1242.5 by MAKITA::CICCONE >>>

      I hope I wrong about this, but...

>                    ... The problem? He is not insured.
      
      First,  anyone  who  hires  employs  is  required  by law to carry
      workmen's compensation insurance.
      
      Second,  almost anyone in business carries liability insurance for
      his/her own protection. (As in "anything that can go wrong will go
      wrong.") Not to do so is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
      
      So  this  situation raises the possibility -- and, again, I really
      hope I'm  wrong  --  that  your  friend  could  be  considered  an
      irresponsible  law-breaker.  At best, he is almost certainly not a
      good businessman. Running a building project requires not only the
      technical  skills of a carpenter but also the management skills of
      a businessman.  (Getting the right kinds and amounts  of  material
      delivered when needed; hiring and keeping workers, etc.)
      
      What  I'm leading up to here is the suggestion that friend or not,
      good price or not, this may not be the person you want to do  your
      work. 
      
      Has  this  person  ever done similar work "on his own"?  Or has he
      always worked for someone else who took care of the administrative
      end  of  the business?  Remember, the people who work on or supply
      materials for your property have a lien on it until they get paid.
      Question:  What happens if he mismanages the money?  Answer: A big
      leagal hassle in which YOU may end  up  paying  considerably  more
      than you bargened for.

    The workman's comp thing bothers me. Why, in the case of a homeowner
    acting as GC have to supply W.C. to his subcontractors? (outlined
    in .1) They are "contracted" out, not hired employees, correct?
    I may be doing this down the line, so it would be nice to know
    the clarification.
    
    John

    I asked my lawyer about drawing up a waiver that my contractor friend
    and his crew would sign saying that I am not responsible for any
    injuries. 
    My lawyer strongly recommended not going with the guy. I am still
    shopping around for a contractor to frame my house. I am going to
    a lot of the bigger contruction companies. I only have 2 quotes.
     
    My contractor friend mostly works for other contractors and is a
    co-owner of a several small businesses (cleaning and lawnscaping)
    
     
    

>                                <<< Note 1242.8 by ORS1::FOX >>>
>                                  -< contractor vs. employee >-
>
>    The workman's comp thing bothers me. Why, in the case of a homeowner
>    acting as GC have to supply W.C. to his subcontractors? ...
      
      I'm not sure of this, but based on my asking the same question ~4+
      years ago and my memory of the answer I got...
      
      I  think that if a subcontractor fails to have proper WC insurance
      and a claim is made you, the GC,  end  up  being  liable  for  the
      claim. This why you *ALWAYS* want to ge a copy of the WC insurance
      certificate from the insurance agent (i.e.  not  meerly  from  the
      subcontractor)  *BEFORE*  the subcontractor does any work for you.
      In other words you aren't providing WC for the subcontractor,  you
      protecting yourself. I also require that its reauired by law to be
      this way for a GC, with or without employees.
      
      As  for waivers, etc., remember, there only binding on you and the
      subcontractor. A third party, employees of not, who isn't party to
      the  waiver  can  sue  the subcontractor, GC, or whomever else has
      money. 
      
      Glad to see a lawyer was consulted.  His/her advice is better than
      mine even if it is the same!

I'm considering switching to Metpay Insurance for my homeowners 
insurance.  Would anyone care to comment on Metpay?


Phil

    I use metpay for both homeowner's and auto.  I have found them pretty
    easy to deal with and like payroll deduction alot.  A recent comparison
    of rates (I was up for renewal) showed between 100 and 200.00 advantage
    to Metropolitan.  On a recent auto claim, Metpay originally denied my
    claim that a headlight being hit by a rock should be glass damage. 
    They relented when I asserted myself and paid the claim.  So I'm happy
    with them and staying with them.
    
    Note:  They were rated terrible by Consumer Reports.  Further, you may
    want to look in consumer notesfile if it still exists.  I'm not sure
    where it is anymore.
    
    Ken

    CONSUMER is at LYCEUM::CONSUMER.  Based on my experience, I
    recommend Liberty Mutual.
    
    			Steve

Since you ask... I have abandoned Metropolitan for my auto insurance,
in spite of the fact that I have to pay more elsewhere.  Based on my
experience, I wouldn't consider them for my house insurance.

1)  Payroll deductions:  The amount they deducted changed seemingly every
    week.  I have no idea whether they deducted the correct amounts or
    not, since I didn't know of any way to get an accounting, short of
    adding up all the individual amounts for myself.  I find that disturbing.

2)  The Metpay representations I dealt with at Digital were ok, but I
    almost always found myself getting angry after having to talk with
    their main office.  The details are a long story (and long ago now).
    I guess the person who wrote .1 doesn't mind arguing with insurance
    companies, but I do, so I got out.

I now insure my car with the same people who insure my house -- Amica.
My one potential house claim was no problem.  A tree dropped a big
branch on my house and I asked if I could remove it myself, and *then*
tell them whether there was any damage.  They had to check, but called
back (a company that *actually* calls back!) and said sure!  They even
called back later to check whether there had been any damage -- I hadn't
sent back their claim form because there was none, as it turned out.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

I'm currently on Metpay for my car, and used to be on them for my house.

I'm stuck with them for car insurance due to an "at fault" accident within
the past three years (next time, I'll hit the guy).  I'm not happy with the
phone hassle, and the lack of an office in Colorado Springs is a big minus.
There are cheaper places with better service here, but not if you've had a
recent accident or ticket :-(.

While I had them for homeowner's insurance, I had a pipe burst which trashed
one bedroom.  They let me do sweat equity to work off the deductible; the
result was a new room for zero out-of-pocket and a couple of weekends' work.

    I second the comments made in .3.  I switched  from  Metpay to Amica on
    my  homeowners  insurance  after I found out that Metpay's "replacement
    value" policy was severely limited.
    
    With Metpay,  they  pay replacement value up to an amount equal to four
    times "actual cash  value".    The  catch is that they determine actual
    value by depreciation your  belongings  25% a year.  After 4 years your
    property is worth zero "actual  cash  value",  and  four  times zero is
    zero.
    
    With Amica, they pay the replacement  value,  no  matter  how  old your
    belongings are.
    
    
    Now, there are some people who buy  insurance  on  the  basis of lowest
    cost, but that has always struck as akin  to buying (if you will excuse
    the indelicacy) the cheapest condom you can find..  what's the point of
    low initial cost if the protection isn't there when you need it?
    

    
    I have MET here in Mass. and they have treated me well. I have been
    with them for almost 14 years and have had several claims. They
    took care of my wind distroyed antenna and tower and submerged well
    pump, no problem. My motorhome was hail damaged and that was all
    paid for too,the only problem was a local apraiser, but when I called
    the N.H. office that was taken care of promptly. They even sent
    me my deductable back cause of the trouble I had with the apraiser.
    My daughters violins are also insured on a seperate policy. One
    was accidently dropped and they (MET) said, "have it repaired and
    send us the bill"....$2500... They have been an all right company
    for us.
           
    3 cars
    1 motorhome
    1 Home 
    2 violins
    Sure I pay a bunch, but not as much as my Eastern Mass. counterparts
           
    Jim
    

    If Metpay is so bad, then how come all the insurance salespersons
    who've called me in the last several years quickly end their calls when
    I mention to them that I'm insured by Metpay through Digital?  #1, they
    know that they can't touch Metpay's lost cost for homeowners insurance.
    #2, if Metpay's service is really that bad, then they (the other,
    supposedly better companies) would certainly try to convince me that 
    their service is worth the extra $'s, wouldn't they?
    
    Insurance companies do not get better the higher the premiums are. 
    Even a $5 steel belted condom could fail to protect just as a 10 cent
    one could.... :-)  And, when you ask a question like this in an open
    forum, most responses typically are from those few who were unfortunate
    enough to have bad experiences.  I'd bet that overall, most, if not
    nearly all, DEC employees insured by Metpay don't have a problem with
    them.  JMHO.

There's a lot of truth in .7.  However, there's also a lot to say for
surveys of how happy people have been with their insurance companies
after claims are made -- which is how I picked my insurance company,
not on a basis of high or low price (although the price seemed
competitive, from the limited sample I made).

I wouldn't recommend anyone leave Met who is happy with their service,
or who likes the payroll deduction feature better than I do.  However,
I am curious if Met would agree to raise your house insurance coverage, 
over the phone, just 24 hours before a major hurricane is due to hit.
I still can't believe that my company let me do that -- and although
Gloria pretty well fizzled, I take it as a lesson to not wait until
*after* the disaster to check whether I have 80% coverage.

Incidentally, I called my insurance company and asked them if they'd
consider bidding to replace Met at DEC, and they replied that they 
are too small to take on that much business.  Now, they are not small, 
but apparently Metropolitan is one of the real giants.  

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    I have Metpay for my auto's only. I may switch my homeowners also.
    I would like to get one of those rebate checks at the end of the year.
    
    I have never had a problem with my auto ins, one claim. 
            

    I just spoke with the Metpay rep about the 400% of ACV for replacement
    value.  He said that policy was eliminated a year or so ago because it
    causes so much flak.  He said the current policy is strictly
    replacement value.
    
    -al

    We have METPAY for auto insurance and used to carry them for
    homeowner's and my husband's motorcycles.  Never had a reason to
    complain for auto, and they were always nice enough on the 800- number
    (the people in the offices either didn't know their stuff or were nasty
    - I found).
    
    We switched homeowners when we refinanced the house because we could
    save $100.+/year with the other co., for the same coverage. 
    
    To drift from the subject for a minute .... my husband and I both work
    for DEC and both carry auto insurance with METPAY, but we've always had
    our own policies.  Last year I had 2 cars on my policy thus qualifying
    for the multi-car discount (20%???).  In Jan. I removed one of the
    cars, and the premium for the car I had left jumped 20%.  When I called
    to find out why (I forgot about the mul-car), she assumed that the car
    that was dropped was my husband's and she explained that Met. feels that 
    it is that much of a benefit to have both spouses w/ the same ins. co.
    I explained that the car dropped was mine, but that my husband DOES
    have a policy w/ MET.  OHHHH!!  Well, it turns out that you have to
    EXPLICITLY tell them, and then they can cross-reference the 2 policies,
    and VOILA! BOTH of us qualified for the 20% (each!) multi-car discount.
    Feeling a little greedy/adventurous, I said 'But we've always had Met,
    and we've never had the discount'.  She went back 6+ years, and they
    refunded us hundreds of dollars!   .... so they can't be all bad!  And
    if both you and your spouse are insured with METPAY, make sure you get
    your 20%!
    
    Patty

    
     What state are you in?? I have asked and was told that they do not 
    have a multi vehicle discount. I have a homeowners policy and a 3
    cars insured through them!
    
    		Wayne

    RE: .11
    
    ALRIGHT PATTY....
    
    My wife and I also have separate policies.  I just got off the phone
    and we are entitled to (but not currently getting) the multi car 
    discount.  METpay will adjust our current premium and reinburse for
    past overcharges.
    
    Today is getting off to a *GOOD* start!!
    
    
    
    

    re: .12  
    
    	I live in NH, but .11 works in Marlboro, so I have to assume
    lives in MA.  Also, I'm sure that they reimbursed us for the time that
    we were living in MA.  Try again ...??  But if your multiple vehicles 
    are on the same policy, you shouldn't have to do anything special.
    
    
    re: .11  GREAT!!!  There's something that feels extra-good about 
    	getting money back from an Insurance company ... for me anyway!
    	I'm glad it helped ... pass the word!!

    Can you direct me to the METPAY number you called...I'm interested also
    
    
    
    					thx, john

    The METPAY number that you should call depends on your site.  They're
    in the DEC phone book (in the back, under METPAY, and then it lists the
    specific site offices).  The number that *I* called was the 800- number
    that you get with your insurance policy.  I don't have it with me, but
    will try to remember to get it tonight.  The only number that 800
    information has for them is Met Life ....  If you have your policy, it
    should be right on the front page, something like 'for coverage
    questions call 800-...'
    
    I'll post it as soon as I find it.
    
    Patty

    Finally got it ....
    
    800-422-4272
    
    /Patty

    I just called the 1-800 number, and this 20% everyone is talking about
    does not refer to Mass.  Sometimes it's hard to assume that people
    around here are not from MA.  For those that are, the multi-car
    discount is 5% for collision ONLY.  That's hardly worth the paperwork
    involved.
    
    John

    Well .... it is worth the paperwork because that 5% is really at least
    10% (5% for each policy), and you know you'd be complaining a lot if
    collision went UP 10%.  Especially in MA .... don't give them more than 
    they already take! (-:
    
    Sorry for the confusion - I didn't realize it wasn't the same for MA!
    
    Patty

    re: .-1
    
    actually 5% off X plus 5% off Y  is the same as 5% off X+Y
    
    

    I was told that some (or maybe all) towns and cities have some kind of
    protection from losing your home in a law suit.  It's called Home
    Steaders something-or-other.  You supposedly pay $10.00 a year at the
    town hall and you're covered.  Anyone ever hear of this???  It sounds
    worth it to me, especially where people are sue-crazy!!
    
    Chris D.

    It's called the "Homestead Exemption". Last I heard it was $50 to
    file it and exempted something like the first $100K in equity...
    
    I'm sure an attorney could do one up right quick...
    
    Edd

    Well, I'm sure this was $10.00 and done at the town hall.
    
    Chris D.

  Check note 1576   8-MAR-1989     5  HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION 
    
    in TALLIS::REAL_ESTATE for information on this.
    
    -al (REAL_ESTATE moderator)

    
    This isn't METPAY..  but homeowners insurance in general. My
    Grandmother passed awasy last Aug.  Her house has been vacant
    for about a year before (2 years total) that.  Well now the
    house is finally up for sale.  My mom, who has been taking care
    of the furniture, the bills, the house in general was told that
    removing *ALL* the furniture will make the house considered
    "abondoned" in the eyes of the insurance co's and they will
    not insure an abondoned home.   Any one shed some light on this...?
    The house is located in Mass.   There is little furnature left,
    and mom wants to move it out, but is concerned about this
    abandoned nonsense.  Does a couch, a chair, a few tv trays and
    a bed make that much difference..?     She's afraid of calling
    the ins.  co.  for the idea that they'll get 'tipped off' to the 
    situation.
    
    

Re: .21

Yes, it does make a difference, and your mother should follow the advice
she was given.  The bed is probably the most important thing to stay.

			Steve

    Is the phone still installed?  Has anyone sent any mail there lately?
    
    	A friend who moved to N.Y. kept his house "un-abandoned" for a time
    by coming back for visits every () weeks, and keeping electric bills
    payed.

    Re Abandoned home
    
    The existence of furniture or a phone line won't make any difference
    to the insurance company.  If you look at the existing policy, I'm
    sure you will find a clause that states something like "if the property
    is unoccupied for a period of sixty days, this policy becomes void,"
    or words to that effect.  Periodic visits will not affect the status
    of the property as "unoccupied."
    
    Good news/bad news: it IS possible to buy insurance for an unoccupied
    home.  Almost any local agent can obtain such coverage from companies
    that specialize.  The bad news is: be prepared to pay approximately
    five-to-ten times the normal rate for such insurance.
    
    The above is from my own recent experience in settling my mother's
    estate.  Your mileage may vary, as they say.
    
    PBM
    

    
    thanks for the input...   I'll relay the information to my mother.
    You'd think that with the way the legal system works (or doesnt
    work), that there would be some type of insurance specifically for
    estates while in probate and things of the such..    without heading
    down a rathole..   I guess we all know who the ins co's look out for.
    
    thanks again...
    K-
    

    Believe it or not, alot depends on the zip code of the property.
    For some, insurance for an abandoned property is available only
    through a state agency.  Other areas are "easy" to get.
    
    You can make the house real attractive (and not at all obvious) by
    boarding up doors and windows and thus make getting the insurance
    easier.  I guess the ins co figures you'll never be able to sell it
    this way and will be a long term customer...
    

    Perhaps you can make a tradeoff with someone who would want to occupy
    the house and maintain it for you, sort of like a house sitter.
    
    Eric

There have been a half-dozen or so times with my family (NH and MASS)that we had 
the Homeowners insurance pay for something due to water damage, winds, etc.
In all cases, we got three estimates and presented the highest to the insurance
rep (go for the best payment first).  Payment came based on the estimate.  Some
of the repair was done DIY and the savings pocketed.

Dave

    Isn't that called fraud?

Nope, not fraud.  Nothing in the policies that WE have states that the money 
MUST be used for anything.  If they want to , the underwriter could write the
policy so that THEY get the work done and THEY handle all of the payments.  We 
have been up front and honest.  Our estimates of repair costs are from unrelated
third parties.  The underwriters are free to provide their own estimates. They
are even free to take over the responsibility of getting their own bids, 
getting the contractor(s) to do the work, assuring that the work is complete, 
etc.  Or, they can just cut a check and leave it to me to get the work done.

    
    re .3
    
    There is no fraud at all. It's perfectly legal. In fact he dosn't have
    to get it fixed at all (although it's in his best interest to). The
    only time it would be fraud is if he made more then 1 claim for the
    same damage.
    
    Mike

If you have a mortgage, the mortgagee may require the garage to be rebuilt.

-Mike

	Re .0: I have neighbors that have offered to tear it down and
	       cart it off for a real reasonable price...it's tempting...

	Sounds t'me like y'got a big buncha fi'ah wood, theyah!  Ayuh!

	Since when does a frugal New Englander pay someone to remove good
	stuff from the farm?  Get one of your pals to whack your fallen 
	oak into a couple of cords.  A few hours of good exercise with a 
	chainsaw'll do it.  Then throw a chain around the squashed garage,
	pull it down with the Jeep, and make yourself a handy pile of kindling.
	If you do it right, you can reuse half the old wood in new 
	construction.  

	Regards, Robert.

    
    re .6
    
    Yup.... it may be a requirement from the mortgage company. Same as car.
    If you get in a accident, the lender may require you to get it fixed.
    In fact it's usually part of the lending agreement you sign. However if
    the house is owned free-and-clear (which is unusual), then the owner
    has no obligation to get it fixed. He/she may also get out of getting
    it fixed, if the equity has increased enough to compensate for the
    damage (ie detached garage worth 10k, but you have 100k of equity in
    property).
    
    Mike

    re: fraud
    That's odd. I've never submitted a homeowners claim, but car insurance
    policies I've had state the work must be done, and cost what is 
    stated in the estimate. Otherwise it's fraud - not sure why it wouldn't
    be across the board.
    
    John

To be fraud, it would have to be something the insurance company wouldn't
agree to if they knew about it.  So make sure the insurance company knows
what you intend to do with the money and then you are legally and ethically
safe.  

I've been paid after a car accident and not had the car fixed -- or only 
enough to make it operable again.  This was because they judged it a 
total loss.  When I told them that I wanted to keep the car, they
deducted 25% of the payment for a salvage fee, and gave me the rest of
the money to do with what I pleased.  I expect house insurance might work
the same way, except that the bank usually gets the lion's share.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

>>    That's odd. I've never submitted a homeowners claim, but car insurance
>>    policies I've had state the work must be done, and cost what is 
>>    stated in the estimate. Otherwise it's fraud - not sure why it wouldn't
>>    be across the board.
    
    Bull......I've had car insurance's from several different (about 10)
    insurance companies for almost 20 years, and NONE OF THEM ever had a
    statement that said the work HAD to be done. I don't believe it for one
    minute that insurance companies put that in there.
    
    How is it fraud????? You wreak a car, and you get compemsated for the
    damage. How do the insurances have the right to tell you what you do
    with your money???? A insurance company is going to give you a check
    for the estimate of the damage of the vehicle. They will either just
    use the estimates you submitted, or have a adjuster look at it (in most
    cases they'll have a adjuster look at it anyways). If you then choose
    not to get it fixed, then that's up to you. Your vehicle will be worth
    what it should be without the accident minus what the insurance company
    gave you.
    
    Mike 

    Whoooooooooooooooaaaa
    
    I think that there is a little confusion here... The *INSURANCE* co
    cannot make you fix it, but the *LENDER* may if you still owe money on
    the item in question, because they have an interest in the item.
    
    If the damage to the property is to as garage, then it would be prudent
    to fix it if you owed bookoo bucks on the loan, but like someone said a
    few back, that if you owned it free and clear, then you are under no
    obligation to do anything with the money that the insurance co *MUST*
    pay you as per the agreement that you both made when you took out the
    policy way back when:
    
    	You pay x $$$ for coverage and if you have a claim that we will pay
    you x $$$ for this and x$$$$$ for that, etc...
    
    Hope this clears things up...
    
    
    Patrick
    
    Long_Live_`66_Mustangs!!!
    

    I don't understand the furor over "fraud".  All you have to do is read
    your policy.  If you read your policy and find there a statement that
    YOU MUST GET THE WORK DONE, then write a reply here stating that.  If
    you read your policy(ies) and find NO statement that work must be done,
    then write a reply here stating that.  Or perhaps some noters do not
    have copies of their policy(ies).
    
    I have read my policies and THERE ARE NO STATEMENTS THAT CAN BE
    CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE ME TO GET THE REPAIRS DONE.
    
    Could it be that many noters are putting their mouths (fingers) in gear
    without turning their brains on?  Nah, not DEC noters.
    
    :-)
    
    Dave

    At a slightly different level, it can be argued that, whether or
    not it's allowed by the policy, it's not the right thing to do (to
    use the money for other purposes than repairs).

    The reason for having insurance is to provide a safety net - to
    cover yourself against expenses that aren't likely to occur, but
    which would be beyond your means if they do occur.

    To accept money from the insurance policy, but not use it to
    repair or replace that which incurred the expenses may not be
    fraud, but it can easily be viewed as a misuse of the insurance
    and one reason why policies are as high as they are. To do the
    "right" thing, you'd say "I didn't want that garage anyway; pay me
    just enough to tear it down and cart it away, and leave the rest
    in the insurance pool for someone who really, really needs it".

    
RE: .14
    
    >To accept money from the insurance policy, but not use it to
>    repair or replace that which incurred the expenses may not be
>    fraud, but it can easily be viewed as a misuse of the insurance
>    and one reason why policies are as high as they are. To do the
>    "right" thing, you'd say "I didn't want that garage anyway; pay me
>    just enough to tear it down and cart it away, and leave the rest
>    in the insurance pool for someone who really, really needs it".
    
    	HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
    Where are all the smiley faces?  Surely you can't be serious??? 
    Where do you live?  Anybody who lives in Mass. and gets the yearly
    shaft on automobile insurance (or other types too) would have a tough
    time with this statement.  The only people that would end up with the
    money you didn't take would be the insurance company execs or you'd see
    another new skyscraper with an insurance company's name on it.
    
    Using the money for alternative uses (food maybe?, kids clothes??) IS
    doing "the right thing".  After all, it is the insured person's money.

    If you don't use the money to repair the damage. Then the value of the
    property declines and your insurance will no longer cover you for as
    much as they would before. If you tried to tell the insurance company
    that you did the repairs, but didn't and then later put in a claim for
    the same damage that would definitely be fraud.
    
    

    I AGREE WITH .16.
    
    If I have a property worth $100K and incur $10K damage to it and am
    reimbursed by the insurance co for $10K, it does not matter what I
    do with the $10K.  It would be proper to inform the insurance co.
    that my property is now worth $90K, thus lowering my premium and
    subsequent insured value but that depends on the loss, it might have
    been an outbuilding which does not necessarily affect the insured value
    and premium.
    
    ed

    I'll admit I couldn't find anything in my current policy that stated
    what's being inferred here, but let me give you my experience.
    In 84 I got rear-ended. I was offered 2 choices, (take amount A
    and not get the car fixed or get the car fixed and the ins company
    picks up the tab (minus deductible, of course). Insurer was Liberty.
    That's what happened. Take it for what it's worth.
    

    
    re .18
    
    In 76, I was offered the same deal on a vehicle I owned. I told the
    insurance company to shove it. Either give me full payment which I'm
    entitled to or I make a trip to the insurance board.....I was handed
    a check for the amount I wanted within 20 minutes.
    
    Insurance companies will try to get away with anything if you let them.
    Your insurance was bluffing you and you fell for it.
    
    

    Insurance is basically a wager between you and the insurance company.
    They are betting you that nothing will happen and you are saying it
    will.
    
    As has been said, policies will vary so chack yours before answering.
    
    Eric

RE: .14 

>    At a slightly different level, it can be argued that, whether or
>    not it's allowed by the policy, it's not the right thing to do (to
>    use the money for other purposes than repairs).

      I think i disagree with this, Paul, because...
      
>    The reason for having insurance is to provide a safety net - to
>    cover yourself against expenses that aren't likely to occur, but
>    which would be beyond your means if they do occur.
      
      ...I  disagree  with  this,  too,  so far as property insurance is
      concerned.  (Liability  insurance,  Health  care  insurance,  life
      insurance, etc.  are different animals.)
      
      I  admit  that  this is a bit of a philosophical difference, but I
      insure my house and car not to "cover yourself against  expenses",
      but to protect against the loss of an asset. Certainly my mortgage
      company doesn't care whether I rebuild or  pay  off  the  mortgage
      with insurance proceeds.

>    To accept money from the insurance policy, but not use it to
>    repair or replace that which incurred the expenses ...
      
      I  see it as my having the money in hand DOES replace the asset on
      which I suffered a full or partial loss.  (Less the deductible, of
      course!)   If I choose to keep the asset as cash, or to replace it
      with a different type of asset, but NOT to replace or  repair  the
      asset  I  actually  lost...  --  Well,  I  think it very unfair to
      suggest that that is "a misuse of the insurance and one reason why
      policies are as high as they are."�

      After  all,  I  might  have  planned  to  sell  the asset that was
      destroyed or damaged and use the money for some other purpose.  If
      I just accept the cash from the insurance company all I'm doing is
      avoiding a pointless purchase and resale.  Even if  I  attempt  to
      repair  the damaged asset there is a question of whether or not it
      can ever have the original value. e.g. Wrecked cars, no matter how
      well  repaired,  aren't  worth  as  much as a similar car that was
      never damaged.

      Consider  also  that  not  all  lost  assets  can  be  replaced or
      repaired.  What about antiques and other unique items?   Certainly
      they  are insured with no intention that any insurance claim would
      be used to replace/repair.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      � Actually, I think that the property coverage of  your  home  and
      auto  insurace  tracks replacement cost pretty well.  The insurace
      that has gone sky high in cost is the liability coverage.

    I guess I can buy the asset argument. I tend to react to the way
    people react to insurance because of the "us versus them" and
    "they take us therefore we take them" themes that almost
    invariably appear. It's hard to look at insurance as a source of
    occasional free money when you maintain a $1000 deductible on your
    car...

    
    RE: .23
    
    >I guess I can buy the asset argument. I tend to react to the way
>    people react to insurance because of the "us versus them" and
>    "they take us therefore we take them" themes that almost
>    invariably appear.
    
    Well, whatever rationalization works for you is fine.  But insurance
    proceeds are not required to be used to replace what was insured. 
    Unless what was insured was not yours, but the banks.  To refuse money
    that is due you from an insurance company is sheer folly.  Why buy
    insurance if you don't intend to use it when the time comes?  
    
    >It's hard to look at insurance as a source of
>    occasional free money when you maintain a $1000 deductible on your
>    car...
    
    Where do you get the notion that insurance is "a source of occasional
    free money"?  There is nothing free about insurance.  You pay for
    everything you get, and sometimes things you don't get.  This statement
    seems to imply that people use insurance fraudulently (file false claims)
    to make money.  That IS illegal and people who do it should be dealt
    with harshly.  But don't throw others in the same category when they
    have legitimate claims and just want the cash instead of property.
    

maybe someone can offer me some insight:

i recently uncovered some water damage from leaking roof/gutter/wall/window.
usually i fix things myself but this looked a little extensive after i had 
ripped out a couple sq.ft. of sheetrock (with my fingers), pulled up the rug
and found 5x9 ft. soaked, and the underlayment soaked through too.  metpay
immediately sent over a carpet cleaning company to see to the carpet so it
would not mold, mildew, and/or rot (read "not covered"). 

the next development was the carpet cleaning company taking one look at the 
carpet and saying the damage had already occured and it was pretty much
wasted already.  they sprayed some mildew preventitive and put a fan on it to
dry things up. 

my questions are:  
who's the best type of person to diagnose the actual cause of the leak? 
how is the amount of insurance coverage calculated?
does it make a difference if "i" want to fix part (sheetrock)?
how will the value of the carpet be calculated?
can i use the money for improvement versus replacement? (ie. hardwood floor)

i could go on and on....
thanks for any comments,
craig

    I recently had a homeowners claim with Metpay for water damage on the
    living room ceiling.  It was caused by the plumbing in the master bath.
    Metropolitan paid for everything but getting the plumbing fixed.  Since
    a section of the living room ceiling had to be removed to get to the
    pipes, they covered repairing the ceiling, re slim coating, sealing and
    two coats of paint.  I used a contractor, but the would have let me do
    the work myself.  The only difference is that if you use a contractor,
    they pay more because of the contractor's profit.
    
    I found the claims adjustor to be very helpful and I received the check
    (less my $250 deductible) in less than a week.  Their estimates were
    right in line with what I was charged.
    
    The adjustor told me that in the future I could take pictures of the
    damage and call a contractor in immediately to speed up the process.
    
    One happy camper here

to respond to my note .28:

>who's the best type of person to diagnose the actual cause of the leak? 
as usual- me.  a couple of general type contractors came over and hem-hawed 
over possible causes.  they deferred to others who were experts at finding
leaks, etc.  i may have taken longer and been a little extra thorough but i'm 
sure how it happened.

>how is the amount of insurance coverage calculated?
metpay noted the damage, including the contractor's and my opinion of what 
needed to be repaired, and used their own methods to estimate cost.  they 
seemed very close to estimates for the actual repairs (or higher).

>does it make a difference if "i" want to fix part (sheetrock)?
no problem.  the choice is mine.

>how will the value of the carpet be calculated?
full replacement.  i have that kind of insurance and the amount seems like 
enough for the most expensive sears sale carpet ($30/sq yd) just for 
reference.

>can i use the money for improvement versus replacement? (ie. hardwood floor)
it's up to me.

all in all i am very pleased with the metpay service.  now i just have to 
find out what happened to the payment check which was made out to me and 
marine midland mortgage company.  i sent it to marine midland a couple of 
weeks ago for signing so i could cash it.  

-craig

>                                                       now i just have to 
>find out what happened to the payment check which was made out to me and 
>marine midland mortgage company.  i sent it to marine midland a couple of 
>weeks ago for signing so i could cash it.  

I think when I had a two-party check made out to the bank and me, they
suggested that I sign it over to them and use it to pay the mortgage.
Of course, if the check's for more than your mortgage payment, this
wouldn't work.

    Hi,
    
    I hope this has not been covered elsewhere, if so, mods please feel to 
    delete... having said that,...
    
    Does anyone know if your 'typical' homeowners insurance will cover 
    chimney damage that results from a chimney fire, more specfically 
    the repair/replacement of the liner?
    
                                Thanks,
    
                                       Perry F.
                                      ----------

                     <<< Note 4715.0 by REBEL1::FAUCHER >>>
                           -< HOMEOWNERS insurance? >-

    Does anyone know if your 'typical' homeowners insurance will cover 
    chimney damage that results from a chimney fire, more specfically 
    the repair/replacement of the liner?
    
>>>Who cares what the typical policy covers, they tend to have all kinds of 
little nooks and crannies that can get you.....call your agent to see what 
YOUR policy covers.....if you don't want to ask just the one question, make 
up a list of 1/2 dozen hypothetical questions with it....

    	Vic

    See note 258 in TALLIS::REAL_ESTATE.
    
    258 MANTIS::MCGOLDRICK 9-JUN-1987 *** Official Homeowner's Insurance Note ***
    
    -al

This is a "do it yourself" projects notesfile.  Don't you think this question 
is kind of ENTIRELY off the subject???

Hey if people can create topics on refinancing, this guy should get his
question answered about a chimny fire right?  :-)

Re: .0

Had the same problem 4-5 years ago.  We had a small chimney fire in a block
chimney and had Metpay take a look at it.  It took them 3 trips to the house
before I finally convinced them that it should be covered.  They tried to
tell me it was due to settling (although the crack started where the flue
entered the chimney and went all the way to the top).  I finally told them,
"hey, you can give me the $1500 bucks now to fix this thing, or I'll keep 
using the woodstove, burn the house down and you can give me the $210K the
house is assessed at!"  We got a check a couple of days later.

					Steve

Yeah... I would have voted that one down, too, but it was well under way 
when I noticed.  Then again, notesfiles ain't run like a democracy.

    I had a chimney fire that cracked the liner. Metpay covered the cost of
    a new liner, minus the deductable.
    
    No sweat
    
    Marc H.

    
    Thanks for the replies folks, I very much appreciate it.
    
    My apologies to those that flagged this as an inappropriate arena for
    the question.  I wasn't really sure where it would be appropriate to
    post this type of question.
    
                                                     Perry F.
                                                    ----------

    I tried, politely, (or maybe not so politely,depending on your opinion 
of my writing finesse) to point the basenoter to a better answer than we 
could give him. Other appropriate answers have would be pointers to other 
notesfiles. It is a crapshoot for moderators to second guess whether to 
keep or delete a topic. Some days I have more time than others to decide 
what to do with them. This one I decided to let ride.....

    Vic, the moderator.....

    I purchased a home about 1 1/2 years ago that has an inground
    guinite pool.  When I went to metpay to get home owners insurance
    they said that they would not cover the pool because it is a 
    below ground structure.   Kind of funny because I know of three
    homes in town that are totally below ground.   I never followed
    up on this (I forgot).   Has anybody else had a problem insuring
    a inground pool??

    What's to insure?  Fire won't destroy it.  Screwing up your checmicals
    will damage the finish causing a fair expense to you, but why should
    they insure you against stupidity?  I'd bet they do cover liability
    should someone break his neck diving into the pool.
    
    ed

    craking do to gound movement, vandalism,  just anything that would
    render it junk other than inproper maintainance

	Have you called other companies to see whether they would insure a
	pool? Metpay is just one among many.

	Roy

    We lived in Florida for about 5 years and purchased a home with an
    in-ground pool.
    
    At closing we were given an offer to have our pool covered by an extended
    Home Owner's Warranty (HOW) for around $125 per year.  This
    covered structural damage due to ground-shifts or storms and also
    for damage due to electrical spikes taking out the pump and
    related equipment, which is a frequent issue in Southern Florida.
    
    You may want to check with the local Realtors to see if they have
    contact information.
    
    
    Hope this helps,
    
    Scott

    Can anybody recommend a Public Adjuster to handle negotiations of
    an insurance settlement for ice dam damage. We are dealing with more
    than simple cosmetic damage and want to be sure that the insurance
    covers the actual cost of work required.
    
    My understanding is that PA's charge 10% of the final settlements,
    which seems reasonable if they get everything covered and eliminate 
    the headache of dealing with an insurance adjuster.
    
    Any pointer to a Public Adjuster that works in the Greater Maynard
    area would be appreciated.
    
    Jonathan

Hi,
	Does anyone have any experience with either Quincy Mutual or Plymouth
Rock (aka Bunker Hill)?  My sister is looking into them for home insurance.

Thanks,
Barb