Beste Lex / Rohini, Zie onderstaand

Beste Lex / Rohini,

Zie onderstaand een reactie van verzekerde inzake de schades aan de containerwoningen (Maasduinen B.V.). Zoals jullie kunnen zien ligt het standpunt van verzekerde ver van het door jullie ingenomen standpunt.

Ik zie jullie reactie met belangstelling tegemoet.

Met vriendelijke groet,
Peter de Koning

----- Doorgestuurd door Peter de Koning/RvO op 16-03-2015 09:10 -----
Van: "Henk de Boers"
Aan: "Peter de Koning" ,
Cc: "Bertjan de Lange"
Datum: 14-03-2015 09:41
Onderwerp: RE: FW: containerwoningen
________________________________________
Geachte heer de Koning,

Excuses dat mijn antwoord op zich heeft laten wachten. Na overleg met mijn advocaat kom ik op het volgende.

Ik wil voorop stellen dat de verzekering niet tot stand is gekomen op basis van een aanvraagformulier, maar telefonisch en per e-mail. Als u bepaalde informatie essentieel zou hebben gevonden, dan had u daar expliciet naar moeten vragen. Op grond van de eerdere verzekering zoals uit uw e-mailbericht van 18 september 2013 blijkt, was het adres, de staat waarin de woonunits verkeerden en het gebruik u reeds bekend. U was dus ook op de hoogte van het feit dat het complex op de nominatie stond om afgebroken te worden. Vandaar dat Maasduinen de woonunits en niet het gehele complex heeft verzekerd. Het eigen risico was ook niet één eigen risico voor het hele complex.

Onderverzekering
De verzekerde som op basis van herbouwwaarde bedraagt €2.679.742. U stelt zich op het standpunt dat de herbouwwaarde €11.000.000 bedraagt op grond van het rapport van Crawford, welke herbouwwaarde hij overigens in het geheel niet onderbouwd. Naar verluid is het complex destijds, in 2005, turn-key opgeleverd voor €4.500.000. De prijsstijging tot september 2014 zal ongeveer 22% zijn geweest, waarmee de herbouwwaarde van het complex in vergelijkbare staat €5.490.000 zal zijn geweest, dus de helft van de door Crawford veronderstelde herbouwwaarde. Ik wijs er op dat het slecht gaat om een eenzijdige expertise. Op grond van de polisvoorwaarden kunnen beide partijen een deskundige aanwijzen, die vervolgens weer een derde deskundige zullen waarna de twee experts gezamenlijk de schade vaststellen en de derde expert bij onenigheid de schade vaststelt. Ik houd mij alle rechten te dier zake voor.

Ik heb de stellige indruk dat bij de bepaling van de herbouwwaarde Crawford is uitgegaan van de herbouwwaarde van het totale complex, waarbij hij dan de plank mis slaat, als dat weer van de grond af aan zou moeten worden opgebouwd. De herbouwaarde voor de verzekering is niet op die wijze bepaald.

Het belang was dus gelegen in de herbouwwaarde van de 296 woonunits op zich, oftewel enkel de prijs af fabriek van 296 woonunits af fabriek, nu de woonunits uitsluitend waren aangekocht om elders een nieuw complex op te bouwen. Alle opbouwkosten etc. behoefden niet mee verzekerd te zijn daar Maasduinen deze kosten toch zou hebben. In uw e-mailbericht van 9 december 2013 vroeg u ook slechts naar de adresgegevens van de locatie waar de units staan, dus niet naar het adres van het complex.

De door Crawford aangenomen herbouwwaarde was dus reeds te hoog, omdat dit bedrag kennelijk is gebaseerd op de herbouwwaarde van het totale complex in plaats van 296 woonunits, maar ook te hoog voor het complex als één geheel. De totale herbouwwaarde van de losse units was niet althans nauwelijks hoger dan de verzekerde herbouwwaarde. Inmiddels is een offerte uitgebracht voor nieuwe woonunits voor een ander project. Op basis van de offerte bedraagt de herbouwaarde 296 maal €19.612.58. aldus €5.805.323,68. waarbij ik opmerk dat deze units moderner en luxueuzer zijn dan de verzekerde units.

Aangezien de units zijn verzekerd op basis van herbouwwaarde moet de schade ook op die basis worden berekend en bedraagt de schade op basis van herbouwwaarde €1.250.000, behoudens de eventuele onderverzekering. In de polis staat een verzekerde som van €2.679.742 en een vorkbedrag van €1.000.000. Voor deze constructie is gekozen omdat het bedrag van €1.000.000 voldoende is om bij partiële schade in een adequate vervanging te voorzien. Ik heb begrepen dat dit betekent dat geen beroep kan worden gedaan op onderverzekering en dat recht bestaat op volledige schadevergoeding tot een bedrag van €1.000.000. Nu de schade op basis van herbouwwaarde €1.250.000 bedraagt, heeft Maasduinen recht op in ieder geval €1.000.000 schadevergoeding, onder aftrek van het eigen risico.

Gebeurtenis
De polisvoorwaarden kennen geen definitie van het begrip gebeurtenis. Vele polissen kennen wel een definitie van het begrip gebeurtenis, zoals:
Een reeks met elkaar verband houdende voorvallen wordt als één gebeurtenis aangemerkt, die voor de vaststelling van het tijdstip van de gebeurtenis geacht wordt te hebben plaatsgevonden op het moment van het eerste feitelijke voorval uit de reeks.

Crawford gaat er terecht van uit dat één en dezelfde groep dieven de inbraak hebben gepleegd: “Naar onze mening hebben de daders deze klus niet in één nacht kunnen klaren.” Crawford beschouwt dus de inbraken in de woonunits als één klus. Ook al heeft men er meerdere dagen en/of nachten over gedaan, dan is sprake van een reeks van met elkaar verband houdende voorvallen, die om die reden als één gebeurtenis moeten worden beschouwd.

Eigen risico
Het eigen risico bedraagt €2.500 per gebeurtenis, met een maximum van €10.000 per gebeurtenis. Nu sprake is van één gebeurtenis, is dus het eigen risico €10.000.

Leegstand
Het complex was voordien reeds bij u verzekerd dus bij u volledig bekend. Het was u dan ook bekend dat het complex leegstond en moest worden verwijderd.

Voorstel
De verzekeraars becijferen het uit te keren schadebedrag op een bedrag tussen de €112.500 en €202.500, afhankelijk van de herbouwwaarde. Het eigen risico stellen zij op €100.000, waarmee de voor vergoeding in aanmerking komende schade ligt tussen de €12.500 en €102.500. Het eigen risico is echter slechts €10.000.
Maasduinen is van mening dat zij recht heeft op €1.000.000, onder aftrek van het eigen risico van €10.000. Maasduinen is bereid om de zaak af te wikkelen tegen betaling van een bedrag van €750.000.

Met vriendelijke groet,
Henk de Boers


Van: Peter de Koning [mailto:[e-mail]]
Verzonden: maandag 12 januari 2015 14:10
Aan: Henk de Boers
CC: Cees Ketel
Onderwerp: RE: FW: containerwoningen

Geachte heer de Boers,

Wij hebben zojuist een kort telefoongesprek gehad waarin ik heb aangegeven dat verzekeraars in uw reactie geen reden hebben gezien om het eerder gedane en inmiddels feitelijk reeds vervallen aanbod bij te stellen.

Ik heb u aangegeven dat ik bereid ben om met verzekeraars een bijstelling van hun aanbod, ter finale kwijting, te bespreken waarbij ik tevens heb aangegeven dat een dergelijke bijstelling, zo al mogelijk, relatief gering zal zijn. Tevens heb ik u aangegeven dat, indien u van mening bent dat de regeling substantieel hoger zou moeten zijn, een procedure naar mijn inschatting niet te vermijden zal blijken.

U heeft aangegeven de opgave van de (nieuwwaarde / herbouwwaarde) van de vorige eigenaar te willen afwachten waarna u met een definitieve reactie komt. Overigens zullen wij wel opnieuw met verzekeraars in overleg moeten treden om een eventueel nieuw voorstel voor afwikkeling overeen te komen.

Met vriendelijke groet,
Peter de Koning


Van: "Henk de Boers"
Aan: "Peter de Koning" ,
Datum: 23-12-2014 22:54
Onderwerp: RE: FW: containerwoningen
________________________________________
Geachte heer de Koning,

Fijn dat we voor deze weg kiezen en niet voor een procedure, hopelijk gaan we eruit komen.

Ik lees dat Maasduinen heeft gekozen geen maatregelen te treffen na de opname van Ad Hoc, dat is niet juist. Omdat het beveiligen een bijna onmogelijk opgave bleek en de termijn dat de units daar mochten blijven nog maar kort was, hebben we besloten de units per direct te verplaatsen, toen constateerde we ook de schade en hierna zijn we er dagelijks geweest.

U heeft het over 10 gebeurtenissen, ik blijf het als 1 gebeurtenis zien, mijn advocaat deelt deze mening.

Ik ben bezig de nieuwwaarde van het complex te achterhalen, helaas heb van de vorige eigenaar nog geen antwoord gehad. Ik zit hier achteraan en laat het u zo spoedig mogelijk weten.

Graag wil ik van u weten wat de expert nou met de schade op basis van verkoopwaarde bedoelt. Verkoopwaarde is € 1.500.000,00 dat heb ik aangetoond, als de units in deze staat nog € 300.000,00 opbrengen, dan is de schade toch € 1.200.000,00?

Ik hoor u graag,
Met vriendelijke groet,
Henk de Boers


Van: Peter de Koning [mailto:[e-mail]]
Verzonden: woensdag 17 december 2014 13:52
Aan: Henk de Boers
CC: Cees Ketel
Onderwerp: Re: FW: containerwoningen

Geachte heer de Boers,

Onder referte aan de diverse e-mails alsmede het verslag van ons eerdere gesprek kunnen wij u meedelen dat wij de door u verstrekte aanvullende informatie inzake het "toezicht/leegstandsbeheer" op de locatie met de verzekeraars hebben besproken. Helaas moeten wij u meedelen dat verzekeraars nog steeds van mening zijn dat het voor Maasduinen steeds duidelijk is geweest welke risico's er samen hingen met het (laten) ontbreken van toezicht en/of leegstandsbeheer. Verzekeraars hebben hiervoor de volgende argumenten:
• Kennelijk is er in december 2013 gesproken over toezicht/leegstandsbeheer waarbij duidelijk is geworden dat het kennelijk niet de bedoeling zou zijn dat er mensen in de units zouden gaan wonen. Dit is echter zeker niet de enige vorm van leegstandsbeheer die mogelijk is.
• Het vorenstaande blijkt naar de mening van verzekeraars ook uit het bezoek van AdHoc van 9 september 2014 waaruit blijkt dat kennelijk rond

結果 (英語) 1:

Best Lex/Rohini, See below a reaction of the insured on the damage to the container housing (maasduinen B.V.). As you can see, the position of insured is far from the position taken by you. I see your response with interest. Best regards,Marcus Daniels— — — —-Forwarded by Peter the King/Rfo on 16-03-2015 09: 10----- From: "John Baker" To: "Peter the King" , Cc: "Paul the long" Date: 14-03-2015 09: 41 Subject: RE: FW: container homes ________________________________________Dear Sir the King, Apologies that my answer in coming. After consultations with my lawyer I come on the next. Let me say that the insurance is not established on the basis of an application form, but by telephone and by email. If you have certain information would have found essential, then you had to explicitly have to ask. On the basis of the earlier e-mail message from your insurance as of 18 september 2013 turns out, was the address, the State in which the living units and use you were already known. You were so aware of the fact that the complex was to be broken off on the nomination. Hence maasduinen the living units and not the entire complex has assured. The excess was not one excess for the entire complex. Underinsurance The insurance sum amounts to € 2.679.742 on the basis of reinstatement. You takes the view that the rebuilding value amounts to € 11 million on the basis of the report of Crawford, which he in no way substantiated rebuilding value. The complex is said to be at the time, in 2005, turn-key for € 4,500,000. The price increase until september 2014 will have been about 22%, with which the reinstatement of the complex will have been in similar State € 5.490.000, so half of the reconstruction value assumed by Crawford. I would point out that the bad comes to a one-sided experience. On the basis of the policy conditions both sides can designate an expert, which then display a third expert will determine the damage and then the two experts jointly the third expert at dispute the damage determines. I am all rights relevant for. I have the distinct impression that Crawford in the definition of the reconstruction value is assumed to be of the reconstruction value of the total complex, which he then wrong stores, like that again would have to be built from the ground up. The rebuilding Earth for the insurance is not determined in this way. The importance was so located in the reconstruction value of the 296 living units in itself, that is, only the ex-works price of 296 living ex-works, now the only living units units were purchased to build a new complex elsewhere. All building expenses etc. not to be insured there were maasduinen these costs would have anyway. In your e-mail message, of 9 december 2013 asked you also only to the address of the location where the units are, not to the address of the complex. The reinstatement was adopted by Crawford so already too high, because apparently this amount is based on the value of the total complex rebuilding instead of 296 living units, but also too high for the complex as a whole. The total value of the loose reconstruction units was not at least hardly higher than the insured rebuilding value. Meanwhile released a quote for new residential units for another project. On the basis of the offer amounts to 19.612.58 € the rebuilding Earth 296 times. Thus € 5.805.323, 68. where I notice that these units are more modern and more luxurious than the insured units. Since the units are insured on the basis of rebuilding value should also be calculated on that basis and the damage amounts to € 1,250,000 based on rebuilding the damage value, subject to any resulting from being underinsured. In the polis is an insured sum of 2.679.742 € and a fork amount of € 1,000,000. For this construction is chosen because of the amount of € 1,000,000 is sufficient to provide an adequate replacement with partial damage in. I understand that this means that no job can be done on resulting from being underinsured and that right to full compensation of up to € 1,000,000. Now the damage based on rebuilding value amounts to € 1,250,000, has at least € 1,000,000 maasduinen right to compensation, net of the deductible. Event The policy conditions have no definition of a event. Many policies a definition of the concept of event, such as: A series of related events is regarded as one event, to be used for the determination of the time of the event is supposed to have taken place at the time of the first actual occurrence in the series. Crawford is going to become of that one and the same group of thieves have committed the burglary: "the perpetrators have not, in our view, this job can done in one night." Crawford considers so the burglaries in the living units as one job. Even if one has multiple days and/or nights about done, then talk of a series of inter-related events, which for that reason are to be regarded as one event. Own risk The own risk deductible amounts to € 2,500 per event, with a maximum of € 10,000 per event. Now there is a single event, so the excess is € 10,000. Vacancy The complex was previously already at you insured so when you fully known. It was therefore announced that the complex was empty and had to be removed. Proposal The insurers calculate the amount of damages at an amount between € 202.500 € 112,500 and, depending on the rebuilding value. The own risk deductible shall inform on € 100,000, with which the damage for which reparation is between € 12.500 and € 102,500. However, only the own risk is € 10,000. Maasduinen considers that it is entitled to € 1,000,000, net of the deductible of € 10,000. Maasduinen is willing to settle the case against payment of a sum of € 750,000. Best regards, Henk de Boers By: Peter the King [mailto: [e-mail]] Posted: Monday 12 January 2015 14: 10To: Henk the BoersCC: Cees BoilerSubject: RE: FW: container homes Dear Sir the Boers, We have just had a brief telephone conversation in which I have stated that insurers in your comment have no reason seen to earlier and to adjust now actually already expired offer. I have indicated that I am willing with insurers an adjustment of their offerings, in final discharge, discuss where I also have stated that such an adjustment, if possible, will be relatively small. I have also indicated that, if you believe that the scheme should be substantially higher in my estimation, a procedure will prove unavoidable. You indicated the Declaration of (shop value/rebuild value) of the previous owner to want to wait and see before you with a final response. Otherwise we will have to act in consultation with insurers again to any new proposal for settlement to be agreed. Best regards,Marcus DanielsFrom: "John Baker" To: "Peter the King" , Date: 23-12-2014 22: 54 Subject: RE: FW: container homes ________________________________________Dear Sir the King, Great that we choose for this road and not for a procedure, hopefully we're going to come out. I read that Maas dunes has chosen not to take action after the inclusion of Ad Hoc, that is not accurate. Because securing a nearly impossible task turned out and the term that the units were allowed to remain there only recently, we decided to move the units immediately, when we also noted the damage and then are we there been daily. You talk about 10 events, I keep it as 1 see event, my lawyer shares this view. I'm working on the new value of the complex to figure out, unfortunately the previous owner have had no reply yet. I'm sitting here at the back and let you know as soon as possible. I would like to know from you what the expert well with the injury on the basis of sales value mean. Sales value is € 1.500.000, 00 I have shown, if the units in this State still € 300,000, 00 € 1,200,000 would damage anyway, 00? I hear you like, Best regards, Henk de Boers By: Peter the King [mailto: [e-mail]] Posted: Wednesday 17 december 2014 13: 52To: Henk the BoersCC: Cees BoilerSubject: Re: FW: container homes Dear Sir the Boers, Under reference to the various emails as well as the report of our earlier conversation we can inform you that we the supplementary information supplied by you on the "supervision/vacancy management" on the location with the insurers have discussed. Unfortunately, we have to inform you that insurance companies still are of the opinion that it has been increasingly clear for maasduinen what risks there were hanging together with the lack of supervision and/or leegstandsbeheer. Insurers have the following arguments: • Apparently in december 2013 talked about supervision/leegstandsbeheer where it has become clear that it is manifestly not intended would be that there are people in the units were going live. However, this is certainly not the only form of vacancy management possible. • The above appears also in the opinion of insurers from the visit of AdHoc of 9 september 2014 showing that apparently around

結果 (英語) 2:

Best Lex / Rohini, see below a reaction insured for the damage to the container houses (Maasduinen BV). As you can see is the position of the insured far from the position taken by you. I look forward to your response with interest. Sincerely, Peter King ----- Forwarded by Peter King / RP on 16-03-2015 09:10 ----- From: "Henk de Boer"










To: "Peter the King" ,
Cc: "Bertjan Long"
Date: 14-03-2015 09:41
Subject: RE: FW: container houses
________________________________________
Dear Sir King, apologies that my answer in coming. After consultation with my lawyer I come to the next. I want to stress that the insurance is not established on the basis of an application, but telephone and e-mail. If certain information would have found essential, then you'd have to explicitly ask for. Based on the previous insurance as your e-mail of September 18, 2013 shows the address was the state of the housing units were in, and the use you familiar. So you were also aware of the fact that the complex was slated to be demolished. Hence Maasduinen has assured the residential units and not the entire complex. The excess was not one deductible for the entire complex. Under insurance the sum insured on the basis of replacement cost is € 2,679,742. You takes the view that the reconstruction is € 11 million on the basis of the report of Crawford, reconstruction which he incidentally not supported at all. Reportedly, the complex then, in 2005, turnkey delivered for € 4.5 million. The price increase until September 2014 would be about 22%, which would have been reconstruction of the complex in similar condition € 5.49 million, or half of the reconstruction assumed by Crawford. I would point out that it is bad to a one-sided expertise. Under the policy conditions, both parties can appoint an expert who then again a third expert and the two experts will jointly assess the damage and the third expert disagreement determines the damage. I love me any rights in respect thereof before. I have the distinct impression that in determining the reconstruction Crawford is based on the reconstruction of the entire complex, where he got it wrong, like that again from scratch would affect must be built up. The rebuilding soil for the insurance is not determined in this way. The importance was therefore located in the reinstatement of the 296 residential units alone, or only works price of 296 residential units factory, now the residential units were purchased exclusively for a new complex elsewhere to build up. All building costs etc. needed not it be assured there Maasduinen these costs would have anyway. In your e-mail of 9 December 2013, asking you only to the address of the location where the units are, therefore, not to the address of the property. The reconstruction adopted by Crawford was already so high, because this amount is apparently based on the reconstruction of the entire complex, instead of 296 residential units, but also too high for the complex as a whole. The total reconstruction of the separate units was at least slightly higher than the insured reconstruction. Meanwhile, a tender issued for new housing units for another project. Based on the tender to rebuild the earth is 296 times € 19.612.58. thus € 5,805,323.68. which I notice that these units are modern and luxurious than the insured units. Since the units are insured under reinstatement injury must be calculated on that basis and amounts to the damage on the basis of reconstruction € 1.25 million, subject to any underinsurance . The policy is an insured sum of € 2,679,742 and a fork amount of € 1,000,000. This construction was chosen because the amount of € 1 million is sufficient to provide for partial damage in an adequate substitute. I understood this to mean that no appeal can be made ​​to include insurance and that right to full compensation to an amount of € 1,000,000. Now the damage is based on reconstruction € 1.25 million has Maasduinen entitled to at least € 1 million compensation, less the deductible. Event The policy conditions do not define the concept of event. Many policies do know a definition of event, such as a series of related events is considered one event, for determining the timing of the event is deemed to have occurred at the time of the first actual occurrence of . The series Crawford is going to rightly conclude that the same group of thieves have committed the burglary: "In our opinion, the perpetrators have this job can not get in one night." Crawford contemplates the burglaries in the residential units as a single job. Even if one has done several days and / or nights on, then there is a series of interrelated events which should be considered for that reason as one event. Excess The excess is € 2,500 per event, with a maximum of € 10,000 per event. Now there is one event, so the excess is € 10,000. Vacancy The complex was previously insured with you so when you fully known. It was then you also know that the complex was empty and had to be removed. Proposal Insurers calculate the damages payable in an amount between € 112,500 and € 202,500, depending on the reconstruction. The deductible they draw € 100,000, which is between € 12,500 and € 102,500 for damage that reimbursement. However, the excess is only € 10,000. Maasduinen believes that she is entitled to € 1,000,000, less the deductible of € 10,000. Maasduinen is willing to settle the case by paying a sum of € 750,000. Sincerely, Henk de Boer From: Peter King [mailto: [e-mail]] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 14:10 To: Henk de Boer CC: Cees Boiler Subject: RE: FW: container houses Dear Sir, the Boers, we have just had a brief telephone conversation in which I indicated that insurers in your response saw no reason for the earlier and now actually already expired range to adjust. I have indicated that I am willing to work with insurers to discuss a revision of their offerings, in final settlement, which I've also indicated that such adjustment, if possible at all, will be relatively small. I also indicated to you that if you believe that the scheme should be substantially higher, not to avoid proceedings in my estimation will turn out. You have indicated the details of the (new value / reinstatement) from the previous owner to want wait and then comes up with a definitive response. Incidentally, however, we will again have to act in consultation with insurers to agree on any new proposal for settlement. Sincerely, Peter King of "Henk de Boer"























































To: "Peter the King" ,
Date: 23-12-2014 22:54
Subject: RE: FW: container houses
________________________________________
Dear Mr. King, I'm glad we choose this path, and not for a procedure, hopefully we'll get out. I read that Maasduinen has chosen not take measures after shooting Ad Hoc, which is incorrect. Since securing showed an almost impossible task and the time that the units could stay there was only brief, we have decided to move the units immediately when we found the damage and then we went there every day. You're talking about 10 events, I still see it as one event, my lawyer agrees with this. I'm working to determine the new value of the property, unfortunately the previous owner had no answer yet. I sit back here and let you know as soon as possible. I would like to know from you what the expert meant well with the damage on the basis of market value. Sales value is € 1,500,000.00 which I demonstrated, if the units in this state still € 300,000.00 muster, then the damage is still € 1,200,000.00? I like to hear you, Sincerely, Henk de Boer From: Peter King [mailto: [e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 13:52 To: Henk de Boer CC: Cees Boiler Re: FW: container houses Dear Sir, the Boers, With reference to the several e-mails and the report of our earlier conversation, we inform you that we the additional information provided by you on the "supervision / vacancy management" discussed at the location with the insurers. Unfortunately we have to inform you that insurers are still of the opinion that it Maasduinen always been clear what risks were associated with it (to) lack of supervision and / or vacant management. Insurers have the following grounds: • Apparently there speaking in December 2013 about the supervision / management vacancy which has become manifestly clear that the intention would be that people would live in the units. However, this is certainly not the only form of vacancy management is possible. • The above shows the view of insurers also from the visit of AdHoc of September 9, 2014 showing that apparently around

結果 (英語) 3:

Best Lex/Rohini,

See below is a reaction of the insured on the impacts containerwoningen (Maasduinen E.G. ). As you can see is the position of the insured person far from the position taken by you.

I see you reply.

Sincerely,
Peter the King

----- Forwarded by Peter the King/RvO on 16-03-2015 09:10 AM -----
From: "Henk the Boers"
To: "Peter the King" ,
Cc: "Bertjan the Long"
Date: 14-03-2015 09:41 AM
Subject: RE: FW: containerwoningen
________________________________________
Dear Mr King,

Apologize that my answer has to wait. After consultation with my lawyer i come to the next.

I would like to make it very clear that the insurance has not been achieved on the basis of an application form, but by telephone and email. Certain information is essential if you would have found, you would have to ask explicitly. On the basis of the previous insurance as from your email message of september 18, 2013 shows, was the address,The state in which the residential units were you already know and use. YOU also was therefore aware of the fact that the complex on the nomination was to be aborted. That is why De Maasduinen the residential units and not the whole complex has insured. The own risk was also not one own risk for the entire complex.

Set Out
The sum insured on the basis of herbouwwaarde €2,679,742. YOU take the position that the herbouwwaarde $11,000,000 shall be on the basis of the report of Crawford, which moreover he herbouwwaarde in the whole not substantiated. To neutering is the complex at that time, in 2005, turn-key delivered for $4,500,000. The price increase september 2014 will be approximately 22% have been,The complex in which the herbouwwaarde comparable state will be $5,490,000, so the half of the presumed herbouwwaarde by Crawford. I would stress that the bad is a unilateral expertise. On the basis of the policy conditions, both parties appoint an expert,Which, then a third expert will then the two experts jointly determine the damage and the third expert disagreement finds the damage. I am all for animal rights.

I have the impression that in the determination of the herbouwwaarde Crawford is based on the herbouwwaarde of the total complex, which he than the wrong stores,If that back off the ground should be built. The herbouwaarde for the insurance is not determined in that way.

The importance was therefore located in the herbouwwaarde of the 296 residential units, i.e. only the ex-works price of 296 residential units from the factory, now the residential units were purchased only to relocate to a new complex to build. All opbouwkosten etc.It was not to be insured since Maasduinen these costs would have. In your e-mail message from december 9, 2013 early you also only to the address of the location where the units are, so not to the address of the complex.

The adopted by Crawford herbouwwaarde had therefore already been too high,Since this amount is obviously based on the herbouwwaarde of the total complex in place of 296 residential units, but also too high for the complex as a single whole. The total herbouwwaarde of the loose units was not at least herbouwwaarde barely higher than the insured. Now is a quote delivered for new residential units for another project.On the basis of the tender, the herbouwaarde 296 x $19.612.58. thus $5,805,323.68. which i suspect that these units are more modern and luxurious than the insured units.

Since the units are insured on the basis of the damage herbouwwaarde must also be calculated on that basis and on the basis of the damage herbouwwaarde $1,250,000, subject to the possible set out.In the polis is a sum insured of $2,679,742 and a vorkbedrag of $1,000,000. For this construction has been chosen because the amount of $1,000,000 is sufficient to partial damage in an adequate substitute. I understand that this means that no appeal may be made to set out and that is entitled to full compensation up to an amount of $1,000.000. Now the damage on the basis of herbouwwaarde €1,250,000, has De Maasduinen right in any case $1,000,000 damages, after deduction of the own risk.

Event
booklets know no definition of the concept of event. Many policies have a definition of the concept of event such as:
A series of related events shall be regarded as one event, which for the determination of the time of the event is deemed to have occurred at the time of the first actual event in the series.

Crawford is rightly that one and the same group thieves have committed the burglary:"In our view, the perpetrators this job not in one night get." Crawford considers therefore the break-ins in the residential units as one job. Even if it has been several days and/or nights, than is the case of a series of related events which, for that reason must be considered as one event.

Own risk
The own risk is $2.500 Per event, with a maximum of $10,000 per event. Now there is one event, is thus the own risk $10,000.

Unoccupied
The complex was previously insured with you so when you fully known. It was then you also know that the complex leegstond and had to be removed.

Proposal
The insurers to quantify the amount of compensation paid to a sum of between $112,500 and $202,500, depending on the herbouwwaarde. The own risk they on $100,000, which the eligible damage is between the $12,500 and $102,500. The own risk is, however, only $10,000.
Maasduinen is of the opinion that it was entitled to $1,000,000,After deduction of the own risk of $10,000. De Maasduinen is willing to settle the case against payment of a sum of $750,000.

Yours sincerely,
Henk Boers


Of: Peter the King [mailto:[e-mail] ]
Sent: monday, January 12, 2015 14:10
To: Henk Boers
CC: Cees Vessel
Subject: RE: FW: containerwoningen

Dear Mr Boers,

We have just had a brief telephone conversation which i have indicated that insurers have seen no reason in your response to the earlier and now actually already expired offer.

I told you that i am prepared to insurers with an adjustment of their offer, to final discharge,I also have to discuss which indicated that such a revision, if possible, will be relatively small. I have also indicated that you, if you are of the opinion that the scheme would have to be substantially higher, a procedure to avoid my assessment will not appear.

You have stated the indication of the (value/herbouwwaarde) of the previous owner to want to wait and then you with a definitive response. Moreover, we will again have to act in consultation with insurers to any new proposal for settlement should match.

Sincerely,
Peter the King THE CLIENT ON HIS: "Henk the Boers"
To:"Peter the King" ,
Date: 23-12-2014 10:54 PM
Subject: RE: FW: containerwoningen
________________________________________
Dear Mr King,

Fine that we opt for this path and not for a procedure, hopefully we come out.

I read that Maasduinen has chosen not to take measures after the recording of Ad Hoc, that is not correct.Because securing an almost impossible task and the term was that the units were still there but was short, we decided to move the units per directly, when we found the damage and hereinafter are we there have been daily.

YOU have about 10 events, i continue to see as 1 event, my lawyer shares this view.

I am working on the retail price of the complex to find out, unfortunately of the previous owner still have not had a reply. Here I am back and let you know as soon as possible.

I would like to know what the expert well with the damage on the basis of market value is referring to. Sales value is EUR 1,500,000.00 that i have demonstrated, if the units in this state is still € 300,000.00 understand,The damage is still € 1.200.000,00?

I hear you like,
yours,
Henk Boers


: Peter the King [mailto:[e-mail] ]
Sent: wednesday, december 17, 2014 13:52
To: Henk Boers
CC: Cees Vessel
Subject: Re: FW: containerwoningen

Dear Mr Boers,

With reference to the various e-mails and the report from our previous call we can tell you that we supplied by you the additional information on the "monitoring/leegstandsbeheer" on the location with the insurers have discussed.We regret to inform you that the insurance companies are still of the opinion that the Maasduinen still has been clear what risks there were hanging together with the (let) absence of monitoring and/or leegstandsbeheer. Insurers have the following reasons for this:
• Apparently there has in december 2013 talked about monitoring/leegstandsbeheer which has become clear that the apparently not the intention would be that there would be people living in the units. However, this is certainly not the only form of leegstandsbeheer which is possible.
• The foregoing shows in the opinion of insurers also from the visit of AdHoc of september 9, 2014 showing that apparently around