I have a family friend who's house recently had significant damage from a burst pipe, with water damage through much of the house. He had recently moved out of the house into a retirement home (which is why no one was home, and the damage was so bad). He would like to sell the house, and has an interested buyer. Both he and the buyer would rather he sell the house as is, so they can move on. So he would prefer to receive a lump sum check from his insurance provider for the damages, and then sell the house at a discount to the buyer. But his insurance provider says that they would not give a lump sum check for the total cost of repairs. Instead, they would give something less than that, with the exact amount still to be determined. So this makes it possible that he's better off having the insurance company repair the damages first, and then sell afterwards.
Is this typical? If there is a major claim that will cost $x, and if the homeowner prefers to simply receive a check, rather than have the insurance provider repair the damages, is it common for the homeowner to only receive a percentage of $x? If so, how much might he expect? Half? more or less?
Thanks for any help.
Is this typical? If there is a major claim that will cost $x, and if the homeowner prefers to simply receive a check, rather than have the insurance provider repair the damages, is it common for the homeowner to only receive a percentage of $x? If so, how much might he expect? Half? more or less?
Thanks for any help.