Shaun and Amie Davis were teenage sweethearts when they started saving money to buy a house. In 2006, they found an older home at the edge of Grass Valley that Shaun could fix up, plunked down their life savings, bought a very good insurance policy to cover the replacement value of the house, and moved in with their baby daughter.

When a huge, rotted pine tree crashed over the house in February 2011, falling between their two tiny daughters' bedrooms, the Davises thought their insurance company, Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., would cover the cost of repairs.

Only problem is, the two sides can't agree on what those repairs are — whether the resulting holes and cracks can be patched, or whether the house is now so far out of square that it must be rebuilt. The difference in the repair estimates is close to $200,000.

It's unusual for insurance companies and their clients to be so far apart on an estimate, said Mike Bratton, owner of a State Farm Insurance agency in Grass Valley.

“I rarely see disagreement to this extent,” Bratton said.

Public adjustor Michael Connaughton, of Paladin Consulting in Sacramento, is working with the Davises and three other Nevada County families facing the same issue: Their own experts say the cost of repairs is one amount, the insurance company appraisers say it's a much smaller amount.

In the Davises' case, Hartford's adjustor says the gaping hole in the roof, the cracked sheetrock all over the house and areas where the ceiling caved in can be patched up. The company has offered about $96,000, Connaughton said. That money has been paid and is sitting in a bank account, untouched, the Davises added.

“I've been around construction all my life, and I said, ‘There's no way they can fix our house for that,'” said Shaun Davis, who has continued to operate his painting business during this time.

The front doorway was pushed so far out of square, the door could not be opened the night the tree fell, Shaun Davis said. Gaping cracks spider from the edges of windows and doorjambs. In several rooms of the small, three-bedroom, one-bath house, the walls are clearly out of plumb.

The Davises hired Grass Valley forensic engineer David Long to document the damage. An independent appraiser, using Long's report, estimated the cost at $278,000 to tear the house down and rebuild.

“The insurance company was offering them enough to patch the walls,” Long said. “We did an impact analysis of what the tonnage was, and they're tearing the whole house down to the foundation.”

Anything less than that, the Davises say, jeopardizes the long-term structural soundness of their “nest egg.”

“I planned to raise my children in this house,” Amie Davis said. “It's hard when you have two small kids and you don't know what's going to happen. We just want our home back.”

‘Pre-loss condition'

A contractor for Hartford came out to take photographs of the Davis house to support the evaluation of the company's claims adjustor.

In that document, a photograph labeled as the living room has a note underneath the photo saying, “no damage.” But looking around the room, cracks can be seen at several points.

In the photo, a window can be seen. Above it is a plaque that says, “Thank Heaven for little girls.”

“That's my daughter's bedroom,” Shaun Davis said.

Another photo taken in the Davises' bedroom shows a clean corner and also has a label reading, “no damage.”

But above the opposite corner, where the photographer must have stood to take that shot, a portion of the ceiling has fallen down, and cracks reach out from the corner and the doorjamb.

The couple went through a little-used, state-sanctioned process to hire an insurance umpire — an independent person who reviewed Long's appraisal of damage and the appraisal brought by the insurance company.

In October, all three representatives met at the house, including the representative from Hartford. He uttered words not fit for a family newspaper and questioned the judgment of the company's original appraiser, Long said.

The three came to an agreement about the damage and issued a letter:

“We, the undersigned appraisers, have investigated and considered all the material facts and available information pertaining to this claim, and have decided on an appraisal award as described below which, in the appraisal panel's opinion, restores the building to its pre-loss condition.”

Their award: $252,000, based on the actual cash value of the loss and including building code upgrades. In addition, the family is asking for about $26,000 for loss of use, for a total of nearly $278,000, documents show.

Under California's Insurance Code, Hartford had 30 days to pay the settlement.

But so far, Hartford has refused.

“The (appraisal) panel was limited to providing a value to the scope of repair as presented by the insured only,” adjustor Ivan Yount wrote in October. “The panel made no determination as to the appropriate scope of repair, quantity or quality of materials.

“As you are aware, Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. does not agree with the scope of repair presented by the insured,” Yount wrote. The appraisal faces other points of disagreement, such as the method of depreciation.

Yount could not be reached for further comment.

Before becoming a public adjustor, Connaughton worked decades for insurance companies doing appraisals.

Paying as little as needed to make repairs is “normal procedure for the insurance industry,” said Connaughton. “Not every company in every instance is this egregious, but it's a general practice, and it makes sense from a business standpoint: Maximize profits.”

The Davises are awaiting a third engineering report they hope would settle the matter for good. Like the first report, this one is being conducted by a company that routinely works for the insurance industry, Connaughton said.

“They're going to say exactly what (the insurance company) wants them to say,” Connaughton said. “That's how this works.”

Uncertain future

Hartford also has stopped paying the rent on the house the Davises are renting. Representatives have warned the Davises that further steps “will cost us a lot of money,” Amie Davis said.

They continue to make monthly payments on their house, which includes the $1,000 yearly fee for homeowner's insurance. The combined payments of about $3,000 monthly, plus living expenses, are more than the couple can take, especially in winter when painting work is slow.

“I think what they're trying to do is to push us in a corner,” she said. “We have a wonderful homeowner's policy. It's just too bad they don't stand good on their end of the bargain...

“I know I had an old home. It wasn't the nicest home on the block, but it was structurally sound,” Amie Davis added. The insurance company's offer “is like giving me a salvaged car. That's not what I bought. I don't want a home that's rigged together because they don't want to pay the full amount.”

ooo

To contact Senior Staff Writer Trina Kleist, e-mail tkleist@theunion.com or call (530) 477-4230.