The Roof And Interior Of The Insured Property

HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Inez Grant; Morehouse Parish School Board; Horace Mann Insurance Company and Lloyd Gray, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.

After purchasing rents insurance, it's time to take an inventory of all the items you own. With a list of personal belongings, you can determine if you have enough insurance, and you can use this list to identify missing or damaged items if you experience a loss. To ensure your inventory list is comprehensive, take the following steps to ensure you don't miss anything.

Clear identification of the location of construction and areas proposed to be disturbed and their relation to property lines, buildings, roads, and waterbodies within one hundred (100) feet.

The insureds, who live in a separate house on the same property, refute all of the plaintiffs’ allegations with the exception of their concession that a portion of the siding is missing from one of the exterior walls. They explained that during the renovation of the house, which was completed approximately one year before the plaintiffs took possession, they had a window removed from

The Association alleged in its lawsuit that certain elements of the property were not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner including 1) failure to properly install and flash windows and other exterior penetrations; 2) properly caulk the exterior penetrations; 3) failure to properly install the weather resistive barrier; 4) failure to properly to install the stucco exterior; 5) failure to properly install the EIFS exterior and 6) failure to install brick exterior.

A written letter describing the potential defects. This should include appropriate, relevant, detailed information as to the specific issue, or issues, and the location of the problem within the home. The letter must also provide the owner’s name, the property address, mailing address (if

RMS also asked if Ocwen inspected pre-foreclosure? Ocwen was not on the call regarding how this proceeded through foreclosure. Regarding the insurance claim and demo, Altisource indicated they received only 1 bid and it was very high ($55,000). They are obtaining 2 more bids. Regarding the insurance claim, Altisource again confirm a fire claim was paid out on 4/27/2012 IAO $22,745.86 (with a policy limit of $239,000). RMS indicated this did not seem sufficient and asked if there was possibly another fire, as the demo bid alone (excluding the fact Altisource feels it was high) far exceeds the payout. In addition, based on the insurance payout comments provided by Altisource, the damage did not appear significant enough to warrant demo (much of the claim was said to be interior, with a lot of smoke damage). RMS indicated there needed to be more investigation as this did not make

Mr. Howard, I can't tell you the level of disappointment I have with your organization. This ordeal is taking for ever and causing tension between the roof company our family; I have been speaking about this check with you guys for almost three weeks. I have phoned four times and the conversations sound like no one has any idea of what's going on, and to add with an additional disrespectful attitude. I received your previous email telling us that the only document needed by your office since the repair had been done was the signed and notarized affidavit. This document was express mailed to your office by the Roofing company.

What additional audit procedures, if any, should you suggest to the engagement partner in order to evaluate the appropriateness of the asbestos litigation liability as of December 31, 2009?

The areas concerned with this inspection are the works building and one store in the yard and its immediate surrounding area.

As discussed, I received a call from a Felicia Nash advising that her home is being damaged as a result of the construction occurring on I-75 and Miramar Parkway. Ms. Nash stated that hair line cracks have appeared at the bottom of her home and that her roof has started to separate. Below please find Ms. Nash's address and contact information.

Ladder 1 and 5, Rescue 1, and Car 3 by 6:18pm. At this time Incident Commander number one request dispatch to strike a second alarm due to the size of the building and with the second alarm Engines 2, 16, aerial scope 2, and car 2 are all dispatched to the scene. At 6:20pm Incident Commander number one request building information from dispatch but no building plans were ever found creating confusion on how the interior of the building was designed. At 6:26pm Incident Commander one enters the building through a door from the first floor and goes up the stairway into the second floor where the fire originated as well as Engine 13 and Ladder 1 who report that elevator shafts were engulfed into fire. Incident commander number one reports there was possibly two homeless people still in the building and at 6:31pm Incident commander number two comes on scene in Car 2. Three crews from Engine 1, Ladder 1, and Rescue 1 were inside the building reporting the spread of fire and all work their way up the stairway to the roof to cleared a skylight and had it completely vented and started to descend down the stairs while each crew performed search-and-rescue sweeps of each floor for the homeless victims and fire extension checks. They also have 2 ½ inch hose line and 1 ¾ inch hose line on the second and third floor coming up the stairway for an offensive

The structure of the building seams to have been compromised due to the fire however no report has been released as of this news article.

Four years ago, the city had an arsonist that would burn vacant houses. Correctly sizing up the structure that was on fire and analyzing it as a vacant house, was very important during this period. Vacant houses pose many dangers,

Ernst & Whinney should have evaluated the reliability of the insurance restoration contracts since it was created internally by ZZZZ Best. Furthermore, the limited details in the contracts as noted in the ten red flags that ZZZZ Best’s auditors allegedly overlooked should have raised certain professional skepticism of the auditors. While performing analytical procedures on ZZZZ Best’s financial statement, its auditors failed to notice the substantial excess in its profit margin for restoration projects comparing to the rest of the industry. Physical examination, although a very reliable type of evidence for auditors, was unreliable in this case. Barry Minkow and his accomplices went to great length to cover up their fraud and successfully deceived their auditor. Moreover, the auditors did not have the authority to corroborate evidence with outside third-party due to the confidentiality agreement with ZZZZ Best.