Are you sure the insurance company is legit? Why is there a statement referring to 'arising out of the accident'? I thought this is property damage?
Did you edit the letter or is that it word for word?

I wouldn't sign it or send a copy of my DL but I would show the letter to my insurance agent and get his opinion. I'd never send a copy of my license to anyone.

It's word for word, with the exception of names and numbers, which i deleted. Even the caps are in the original, which also struck me as odd.

I thought the license request was very strange as well, but this insurance company is a major name that you'd surely be familiar with. I've called them to ask for clarification.

Fantastic idea to run it by my insurance agent! Thank you for that. I'll call tomorrow to get their insights on it.

And you're right to wonder about the word "accident" as well. I suppose they "accidentally" did a horrible job and messed up my stuff!

ARRRGG.

I know, this is not a major issue, comparatively speaking, but these kinds of things can really get the better of me. What happened to the real craftsmen? What happened to quality control? What happened to fixing what you break in this life to the best of your ability? And what, for the love of all things holy, ever happened to, "The Customer Is Always Right?"

OK i'll stop now.

Well, i responded with this e-mail. I wonder if it's a bad idea to send e-mails when insomnia takes hold ...

Dear:

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the settlement of my claim for damage that was done to my home and property during a recent floor installation. Although the settlement amount is acceptable to me, i have strong reservations about the Release In Full i've been asked to sign in order to close this claim. My specific concerns are:

1. I don't understand why a copy of my drivers license is required. That contains private information that is not germane to this claim. Can that requirement be waved?

2. The first sentence of the Release In Full states that i acknowledge receipt of the settlement amount. If i haven't yet received a check, how can i acknowledge receipt?

3. I don't understand the last paragraph at all. I can not imagine any circumstance within which i should have to reimburse any amount to the insured for any reason. I would like this entire paragraph removed from the document.

Mr. , i understand that __ may feel only limited responsibility, because i did indeed offer support and praise as this process was underway. But that is, at best, a half truth, because i also expressed many concerns throughout the process, only to have them dismissed in the end. I know nothing broke that can't be fixed, but i was under the mistaken impression that calling a job finished while things remain broken or unfinished is something no reputable craftsman would do.

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Weirdly, i've already had to concede on the workmanship issues, because they're apparently not covered under the claim. Yet in order to close the claim, i have to sign off on all workmanship issues.

For example, they had to replace molding in one room, and the molding was supposed to match the original. It turns out they cut it too short so it wasn't thick enough, and they had to get another batch of molding. Well, after they left, i noticed it wasn't the same molding. It was a totally different profile, and sloppily cut in the corners to make it sort of meet. But this isn't covered because it's considered "workmanship" and not property damage.

Please, everyone reading this, if you have work done in your home, do NOT go with someone without getting a first hand recommendation. Just because someone takes their shoes off at the door when they're quoting a job doesn't mean they're going to respect your home.

If I was in your situation, I'd ask my lawyer to do a quick review of the agreement.

Remember, that since this form was supplied by the people you are claiming against (their insurance co), the wording is going to be slanted in their favor. This also appears to me to be a standard, frequently used form and thus it uses words like "accident". Sort of a one size fits all form.

They want id because they want to make sure that they are paying the correct party. Also, if you are getting paid more than $10,000 there are requirements under the Patriot Act that the payer keeps records as to who they paid (anti-money laundering rules).

What they are basically asking you to do is sign the form...which says that you can never go back to them for additional claims.

Have a quick lawyer review.

Let me ask you... you got this document from them via email?

That in itself strikes me as odd. Why did it not arrive via the regular post, on official company stationery?

There is nothing in there that would worry me. I would sign it, attach a copy of my driver's license and wait for my check to arrive.

I've heard it said, I think by a lawyer or other authority, that signing something that releases the other party of all liability does not actually hold up with the law. Don't have any more info about that, but just throwing it out there if you want to confirm for sound of mind.

Letting your insurance agent approve that is an excellent idea!

McClarke, email is definitely a legal form of communicating.

Estreya, If your insurance agent is a lawyer, by all means have them review it. Otherwise, do as greywings suggests. I'm just pointing out that the form wasn't drafted with your best wishes/needs in mind.

While it would be nice if your own insurance agent - whom one would expect to be schooled in these matters - would be willing to offer his advice regarding the language in the release from the contractor's insurance company, I kind of doubt he will do so because that would be practicing law without a license.

Your did exactly the right thing in emailing a request for further information and an explanation.

As an attorney, I can tell you that it is not unusual for language there to be language stating that one has received money in settlement when the check has not yet been cut. In theory the signing of the release and the receipt of the settlement check are SUPPOSED to occur simultaneously - which is easy to do when one sits down with the other party to sign documents but impossible when things are done by mail. If neither side trusts the other to follow thru, then a sit-down becomes absolutely necessary.

It strikes me that your contractor MUST have a local insurance agent to whom the insurance company could send the settlement check and you could then sit-down with the contractor's local agent to sign the paperwork and pick up your check.

As for providing a copy of your driver's license, an alternative is to have your signature on the release documents notarized by a notary public who will verify that you are who you say you are. All banks will have a notary available. You could agree to meet up with the contractor's agent in the lobby of your bank, have your bank's notary witness your signature on the release and get your settlement check.

As for the final paragraph - it is what is known as a "subrogation clause". Basically it means that if your own insurance company (company A) has already reimbursed you for the damages and your insurance company demands the contractor's insurance company (company B) pay them back, then company B can demand that you give them back the money they paid you.

The contractor's insurance company should not have to pay twice for the same damage and you should not be allowed to collect twice.

Their subrogation clause could probably be worded better to make it clearer that it is NOT intended to mean that the contractor could demand that you pay his extra premiums if/when the insurance company raises his rates because of your claim. You are right that the contractor is one of the "released parties" so, strictly speaking, I suppose the language COULD be stretched to mean that you would have to pay the contractor's increased premiums - although I doubt that any court would interpret it that way.

Perhaps you could insist that they modify the subrogation clause to read:

FURTHER, I agree to reimburse and indemnify all released parties of any amounts which any insurance carriers, government entities, hospitals or other persons or organizations THAT ARE NOT RELEASED PARTIES may recover from them in reimbursement for amounts paid to me or on my behalf as a result of this accident by way of CONTRIBUTION, SUBROGATION, INDEMNITY or OTHERWISE.

Be sure to insist that the inserted clause say "that are not released parties" rather then "which are not released parties." (The reason has to do with the restrictive versus non-restrictive nature of clauses beginning with "that" versus "which."

Alternatively, perhaps you could insist that they add a sentence after the subrogation clause saying: The foregoing does not apply to any amounts which one released party may recover from another released party.

BTW - I applaud you for carefully reading the documents they sent you and making sure you understood them before you signed!

Hope this helps

Good advice from Bevangel. This is standard release and indemnification language, but it could have been worded a bit clearer.

I'm speechless. This community is amazing.

Thank you SO much for your thoughts, everyone. It's amazing to have this kind of support and guidance not only on matters of "How does this look over here," but also when life events unfold that make me feel out of my depth.

The insurance agent returned my e-mail with a phone call this morning (he's a super nice guy). He eased my mind thoroughly (as you all did) and i'm going to press ahead.

About the drivers license, he said they need to verify identity to make sure they're paying the correct individual, and added that it's a State requirement.

As for the "acknowledge you got your check before you get your check" aspect, he said this is essentially a matter of trust, however they are legally bound to pay the stated amount. If they do not, i've forgotten how he put it, but basically they would be in a world of hurt and the State would sick 'em.

That last paragraph is being voided out. He did say it's a form letter, and that the same language is used for both medical and property damage claims. Why this would be the case is beyond me, because i've been a Secretary my entire working life, and creating an assortment of form letters is Administrative Assistant 101. Be that as it may, since this is not a medical claim, he felt comfortable just deleting that whole section.

He added that the word "accident" is probably appropriate, because were the damage intentional, it would be a law enforcement issue rather than a simple insurance claim.

The claim amount isn't even in the same galaxy as $10,000.00 (move the decimal left and you're on the right track), but it's still quite a lot of money and i've been blessed enough to never have to wrangle with insurance companies. So it's an enormous relief to have the comfort level you've all given me to close off this chapter completely and start anew.

Thank you so much again everyone. And happy holidays to all!