The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Financial Planning / Tax Strategies


Subject:  Re: Casualty loss Date:  2/21/2012  10:55 PM
Author:  TMFPMarti Number:  115182 of 131372

Is it two casualties?

With the caveat that I know precious little about this, that sounds like the winner (bad choice of words) to me. I'm basically hanging this conclusion on the "sudden, unexpected" aspect of casualty losses that I seem to recall.

The windstorm was such an event. One could argue that the prudent homeowner would have looked for damage after that. (This thought may well be influenced by my Kansas roots, since in those parts people are often checking their roofs. I also recall more than one case in which the homeowner got the insuror to pay for part of a roof replacement that was due anyway.)

Since the roof damage went undiscovered, the water damage was likewise sudden and unexpected, in a separate event, the rains.

Not that I know it would really matter, but how did the insuror treat it?

Rule Your Retirement Home Fool
Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us