Chris Davis, Pincher Creek Voice
 |
| Annie Lok and David Bairnes stand in the remains of their kitchen C. Davis photo |
According to Lok and Bairnes, a contractor working on behalf of their insurer, the Co-operators, removed the smoke-damaged 'soft' contents of their home, including furniture and personal belongings, and also removed samples of the interior finishing materials to analyze.
"The adjuster said that 'anything that pertains to this claim is to be yours for the asking'," said Lok. "It's a peace of mind contract. We purchased insurance because we were assured that we will be protected if anything happened."
 |
| David Bairnes and Annie Lok protesting in Pincher Creek C. Davis photo |
"Anything over 1.5% means that asbestos abatement procedures has to be held under Occupational Health and Safety (regulations)," explained Lok.
Bairnes explained that two contractors gave an estimate for the asbestos abatement aspects of the reparation. "One company did not have any certified staff to do that, so he (the contractor) scrambled to find somebody that he could sub that to. Unfortunately, time ran away on us," Bairnes continued. "We met with him (the adjuster) the 7 of November He brought nothing. We talked about the possibilities, of all our options at that time. Whether we should consider destroying and knocking the entire place down. We were under the impression that the entire interior was going to be gutted. That's what we were told."
"As soon as practically possible fire and soot stained materials, contaminated materials need to be removed. That's what both of those guys told me, standing in this house. They've been backing out on that matter ever since. They've left it like this."
"On November 14, they started the asbestos abatement. They were done by the 18th. They did the three stage access-egress, they sealed the doors, they created the negative airspace in here, everything was sealed. They took out 2% (asbestos) in the walls."
"When they allowed us back in, we found there's asbestos in the floor tile that still exists. 20% in that case. 40% in the floor tile in the bathroom, and on the lower level. Believe it or not, 88% fabric in all the ducts, that was within the containment area."
"Our house is worth zero, because we can't sell our house without removing the asbestos," said Bairnes.
"We've been asking them to come to the table to meet with us to ask them to explain what they did, why they did, and when they did it," Bairnes continued. "All through Christmas and New Years, we sent letters and emails asking to meet with us and explain things. They ignored us. They told us submit a proof of loss, which is supposedly a statutory requirement. We have a waiver, however that says we didn't have to do that. We got a letter from their lawyer that says to submit a proof of loss."
"We don't know how much it's going to rebuild this house, because their preferred vendor's estimate doesn't make any sense, to anybody. "If you see a film on that wall, and wonder what it is..." interjected Lok, pointing to the wall of one of the upstairs bedrooms, "It's a sealant for airborne particulates, when they're doing asbestos removal," Bairnes continued. It's the wrong thing for the job, because now it has to be removed. In order to remove it, you will disturb the asbestos that's encased in it. We talked to the manufacturer of this material, and he said that 'Whoever is using our product doesn't understand our product'."
"So that is another one of our questions," said Bairnes. "Do you guys really know what you're doing? Why should we allow you back into our house to do anything, at this point? I have a heart condition. I want to know that when we move back into our house we won't be subject to anything."
"They ignored our questions then, they did what they wanted to do, they finished November 23, that's when anybody was last here, and have ignored us ever since. Through Christmas and New Years, we asked to meet with them, and we got no answers, so we wrote that demand letter, we wrote to the CEO."
"We got a letter from their lawyer that said if we didn't provide proof of loss by a certain time and date, it may affect them paying our additional living expenses. So we submitted some invoices, before the deadline happened. We got an email back from the adjuster that our file was at the lawyers, and they couldn't pay us. This was several days before the deadline."
"We can't live in the house, and we own the house. We can't fix the house, because it's technically evidence. We are stuck in between and we don't know what to do or how to move forward. The insurer has chosen to stop talking to us, because they can. The last time they really talked to us was November 23. They've destroyed our lives. As capable and able as insurance companies are of rebuilding lives, they are equally capable of destroying them," Bairnes concluded.
Bairnes and Lok are currently renting a house several doors down from the one they own. They're taking their complaint public. On Friday, July 13 they picketed the local Credit Union (citing the Credit Union's affiliation with the Co-operators) and the Co-operators office in Pincher Creek before moving on to do the same in Lethbridge, where their adjuster is located. Monday morning (today) they planned to go to Medicine Hat before moving on to Calgary. They say they will take their protest all the way to the Co-operator's head office in Guelph, Ontario.
In an interview conducted after this article was originally published, Co-operators Senior Media Advisor Leonard Sharman said "It's a real surprise to us that they have started this campaign. We thought we were close to settling this claim. We're ready and willing to work out any differences we have so we can get back to the business of getting their home finished."
He refuted the couple's claim that the couple has been ignored since November 23. "We've been in contact with them quite regularly since that time." He said the company had "requested information several times" regarding the couple's independent assessment of the asbestos levels in the house. "They have yet to provide us with those studies," he said.
Sharman said the company would be willing to consider independent mediation to resolve the issues.
"We'd really like to see this resolved as quickly as possible."
The couple has also started a blog at www.canadianvictimsofinsurance.com detailing their complaints with updates from their journey of protest.
What does the Credit Union have to do with this problem?
ReplyDeleteIn Alberta, the Credit Unions are members of Credit Unions Central Alberta Limited. Across Canada, Credit Unions in most of the provinces belong to similar member groups. According to the The Co-operators Group Limited Annual Reports 2010 and 2011, Credit Unions Central Alberta Limited is one of 45 member/owner cooperatives who form the ownership group of The Co-operators Group Limited. Hence, they could be considered guilty by association; if one were inclined to draw those kinds of conclusions.
DeleteIt is unfortunate that these people had an incident in there home, and even worse that they bought a house full of asbestos. But why should my insurance rates go up to pay for their poor judgement in purchasing a house that is a health hazard, the insurance is only responsible for the lose caused by the fire, not to cover their mistake of a poor house.
DeleteLOL This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. A credit union guilty by association? Please. I'm fairly certain if anyone called their insurance company to inquire about this, there would be sufficient information and evidence that these 2 people aren't disclosing. I agree that it's unfortunate but as the person above commented...the asbestos in this home has nothing to do with the fire in the kitchen. Their insurance is there to fix damages caused by the fire, not all the asbestos that was already there.
DeleteRegarding the above comment, the story does in fact include information from the insurance company, who were indeed contacted by this author.
Delete-Chris Davis
I'm confused...If Co-operators is waiting for a proof of loss (which is necessary) and these independent assesments why are these 2 protesting instead of providing them? Can I safely assume that insurance is paying for their rental home right now while this is all being sorted out. A think a more devastating scenario would be if there was no coverage at all.
ReplyDeleteDear confused Anonymous;
ReplyDeleteThe Co-operators have had our proof of loss and the estimates you refer to, for months. together with the test results and estimates for completion of the removal of the asbestos, which their contractors left, after a federally and provincially mandated 100% removal of all asbestos from any structure once it is determined it resides there; no matter the cause, situation or circumstance. We are protesting because they insist on perpetuating the deception, to serve their own agenda. While we understand this is a complex situation and very likely, a convoluted read, try to keep up, will ya'. And no, the additional living expenses has also been an ongoing battle.
I don't understand why insurance would pay to remove asbestos when they are supposed to be repairing damage from a fire. I get that the asbestos was discovered as a result of the fire, but why should they have to fix the rest of your house?
ReplyDeleteSorry, follow up question: I just noticed in the article you admit that you haven't submitted the proof of loss (which is an actual legal form, not just estimates or contractor invoices) but in your comment you claim you gave it to them months ago. Which is it?
ReplyDeleteAuthor's note: I have no comment to make about much of the above, as it is outside my role in this story. However, regarding "Proof of loss", I believe you ("Confused") have misread something in the article, as I don't believe it says or implies what you think it does on that specific issue.
ReplyDeleteQuote from the article:
ReplyDelete"They told us submit a proof of loss, which is supposedly a statutory requirement. We have a waiver, however that says we didn't have to do that. We got a letter from their lawyer that says to submit a proof of loss."
Quote from comments:
"The Co-operators have had our proof of loss and the estimates you refer to, for months."
What has been misunderstood? Either they have a waiver and don't have to submit the proof of loss, or they did it months ago.
Confused;
ReplyDeleteAt the time the demand was made for us to submit the proof of loss, we responded by pointing out the waiver we had been sent by their adjuster, immediately after the fire took place. Subsequently, in early March, on advice from our attorney, we, indeed, submitted said proof of loss. Although requirement of proof of loss was waived, we submitted our's, together with third party, independent reports and cost receipts, thereof, which we were forced to undertake to determine and quantify what had been left after their contractor had supposedly completed the job.
Thank you for the clarification, can you please address the question of why insurance should pay to remove asbestos from your entire house (or really, any of it) when they are supposed to be dealing with the damage from a fire?
ReplyDeleteCan you upload a link to the "federally and provincially mandated 100% removal of all asbestos from any structure once it is determined it resides there"?
ReplyDeleteThat would be an interesting read. I would like to see where EXACTLY in this "mandate" it states that your Insurance Company should be SOLELY responsible for removing the asbestos and paying for it. This should hopefully clear up some of these comments.
And unless the insurance company PLANTED the asbestos in the home, I would think the use of the word REPARATION is misused.
What's with trying to meet with them during Christmas and New Years? Are you surprised they didn't reply to your email on Dec 25?
ReplyDeleteAs a person familiar with the restoration business, the Insurance company will only pay for the damage caused by the peril (the fire), the asbestos clean up is on the home owner, and until that is done and cleaned up, no restoration company is going to send in an employee to do any claims work, thats just the law with Workers Comp. The home owners here are in an unfortunate position, but no court will side with them, I assume thats what their lawyer has told them, so they picket and hope the court of public opinion sides with them and the Insurance Company buckles to the public scrutany, but they wont. Advice, get your house remediated, so they can do the claims work.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous;
ReplyDeleteYour expressed familiarity with the restoration business appears to be rather limited. The 'law' you reference is Bill C-45 of the Criminal Code and in Alberta, it is under both the Occupational Health and Safety Code and Act, specifically, the Alberta Asbestos Abatement Manual. Both are easily to access on the 'net.
For clarity, and hopefully, for once and for all, in our case, asbestos was discovered in a number of different finishing materials, such as floor coverings, and wall and ceiling stipling; findings determined by their test results, initially, later confirmed by ours. When the contractors, and please note, these guys are required to be certified, finished the asbestos abatement process, supposedly, according to the directives of the statutes, we immediately saw that was not the case and we began asking questions. This was the last week of November.
In short, they told us it was done, it was not. They didn't want to hear it. We got independent confirmation, at our expense, they didn't want to hear that either.
Hope this helps.