Analysis brought to you by the experts at FC&S Online, the unquestioned authority on insurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&C industry. To find out more — or to have YOUR coverage question answered — visit the National Underwriter website, or contact the editors via Twitter: @FCSbulletins.
Question: My client lives in Marin County, Calif., where the costs of the building trades are much higher than in other areas. A dispute has arisen because the cost of painting the house on the inside, via a contractors sub-bid, is roughly double what the Xactimate program estimated the cost to be. The insured will have actually expended an amount in excess of the settlement, based on Xactimate pricing, in doing the actual repair. The insureds position is that the insurer owes what the insured “actually and necessarily” spent for the repair of the like and kind and not what a computer platform estimates it to be, for the purpose of resolving the claim. What would the Insured be entitled to, the amount spent or the estimated amount by Xactimate for the same work?
— California Subscriber
Recommended For You
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
