Indemnified Structures & Premiums Intrinsic Replacement Cost Values
Actual Cash Value = Depreciated Replacement Cost Values From Predetermined / Pre-Paid For Replacement Costs Charged Policyholder Consumers By Insurers
Generally, constructing / “placing” a structure requires a financial investment.
Generally, reconstructing / “replacing” a structure requires a financial investment.
Generally, the future replacement costs of a structure is established at an insurance agent’s desk.
Historically, the process for placement/replacement of a structure requires physical human effort.
Historically, building construction professionals place and/or replace structures.
Historically, a general / primary contractor contracts with another to place/replace structures.
Historically, indemnification insurance protects against potential future financial loss.
Historically, future financial losses are actuarially/statistically predetermined per future loss values.
Generally, structures do not come into existence by labor and material costs alone.
Generally, structures require construction labor, materials, tax, overhead, and profit costs, to exist.
Historically, general contractor (G.C.) involvement builds intrinsic construction values into a structure.
Historically, insurer replacement costs account for a prospective G.C. to replace/reconstruct a structure.
Historically, insurers charge consumers for future replacement costs of a structure, via premiums.
Historically, premiums account for a future prospective [general] contractor’s involvement costs.
Historically, premiums must reflect viable and verifiable indemnification underwriting.
Historically, actuaries, statisticians, underwriters, and contractors, understand replacement costs.
Historically, contractors account for labor, materials, tax, overhead, and profit costs toward projects.
Historically, replacement costs are determined by local market construction cost range.
Historically, insurers rely on local/regional construction cost range to help determine premium costs.
Historically, “Construction Cost + 10% Profit” math is used to place/replace/repair structures.
Can widespread contingent illegal windfall profit be made by insurers, (by them devaluing / omitting future reconstruction cost values intrinsically woven into a placed structure), via synthetic loss claim value estimating practice presented to an uneducated / unsuspecting consumer public?
In order to factor costs to replace a structure, does charging for market qualified prospective general contractor involvement on the premium end, then omitting said contractor’s (10% overhead and 10% profit) construction costs in loss claim values, equal actual future loss values being properly paid to policyholder consumers?
Does charging consumers for future prospective general contractor costs to replace a structure mean insurers do not owe G.C. overhead and profit costs they have charged a policyholder for when only one trade work [roofing] loss value is owed a claimant?
Who put the roof on a new structure, the G.C., or the roofing contractor alone?
The G.C. using his sub-trade contractor is the actual value of the roofing system to the policyholder.