California E&S Insurance

That is speculation and conjecture. You can use less speculation to presume that there was at least $1 worth of damage to schedule A property from a sudden leak big enough to go through a concrete floor which would trigger tear out coverage. Plus remediation standards I found say that the tub needed to be torn out to dry the area (the adjuster stonewalled this point). PLUS new evidence was submitted from a licensed trades person citing damages mentioned after tear-out. Having said all that, is State Farm really allowed to not physically inspect this claim and indulge in speculation and conjecture and contradict a licensed trades plumber citing physical evidence to deny my claim? I'm genuinely asking from the perspective of a curious consumer. This is the first homeowners insurance claim I've filed in over 20 years of owning homes, and I'm surprised by how little factual basis the adjuster seems to be using in denying the claim. I'm preparing my response to the DOI now and considering what, if any, next steps to take. I’m not looking to be retaliatory, but the way this claim has been handled appears to violate my state’s consumer protection statutes, and I believe the DOI should be aware.

{
  "score": 0,
  "title": "",
  "subreddit": "InsuranceClaims",
  "num_comments": 0,
  "scrape_method": "apify_targeted"
}