A client has asked me to provide an estimate to replace 550 sf of oak flooring in an 85 year old Georgian style home. The house is unoccupied and the flooring was flooded by a burst pipe which went undetected for over a week. The boards are warped and buckled over at least 1/3 of the total area. The insurance company has told her that sanding and refinishing is an appropriate fix. She and I both disagree. Some boards are cupped as much as 1/4″ and you can imagine what the joints look like. I am trying to compose a letter to the insurance company backing up our position and I could use a little help with the wording. I know from experience and common sense that replacement is the right way to go, but the insurance company may not accept my word. I could use a little bit of appropriate verbage that I can use to back up my case and help get my client the proper claim settlement. Thanks.
Good Enough isn’t.
Replies
"The recommended remediation does not, based on my experience in the construction industry, meet the minimum standards for professional work. The recommended remediation would produce unsightly and unworkman like joinery in the repaired area of the floof. The required amount of sanding would remove an excess amount of material. The reduction would not onlt reduce the value of the existing amaterial, but would also shorten its "life span," as it would leave insufficient material for future refinishing.
Thus, the recommended remediation, while possibly expedient, would reduce the value of a valuable asset in the house. This not only decreases the overall value of the asset as a whole, but also creates a liability to the both the present and future worth of the house.
Based on my experince, [insert appropriate years here], the correct remediation is: [insert that here; short text, with maybe a bullet point listing of steps]."
Close with some reasons "why," like a better floor is worth more; less cost for any future refinishing; uniform material is better now & in the future--all the same sorts of things you'd say to "sell" the work to a customer.
That's what pops up in my head just now, at least.
CapnMac - Were you a lawyer in a previous life? Thank you for the wonderfully eloquent thoughts.Good Enough isn't.
Were you a lawyer in a previous life?
<icky shudder> I certainly hope not . . . <g>
Get brought up around folk who prize precision in expression, and who also have written & reviewed a contract or two, and a person can pick up the style.
Mostly, it's case of changing the focus--the insurance company wants to pay out as little as possible, but they also want to retain as much value in the asset as they can. Thus, the "pitch" you make to them is that the repair is substandard, and decreases value. The substandard condition then creates a situation where there will be a larger claim--for replacement--against a lowered overall value. Some of the familiar "buzzwords" in the fine print from the insurance forms (workmanlike and professional, for example) do not go amiss, either.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
with all the other conditions, dont forget permanent water stains in the flooring, no matter how much is sanded.
I would direct your letter to the client, not the insurance company, and just explain to her in straightforward language that in your experience, cupped and buckled floorboards cannot be restored to anything like original condition by sanding, nor can the sub-floor be properly inspected this way.
Even if the surface could be restored by sanding (which is not the case here, considering the extent of the damage), the bottoms of the floorboards are NOT restored by sanding, but are now permanently cupped, violating the integrity of the floor.
The only repair that you can authorize is complete removal of the damaged flooring (or all the flooring, if tie-in and matching the finish looks like it will be an issue), inspection and replacement of the subfloor where necessary, and replacement with new flooring of like kind and quality.
Excellent points. Thank you very much.Good Enough isn't.