On August 18, 2009 I heard from the Fourth Claims Counsel that he was replacing the Third Claims Counsel. We had a phone conversation and I explained what had happened and how I felt that valuing an existing prescriptive easement to a road in a different county was inappropriate. And as naive as I was - I thought he actually understood and agreed with me.
Then a couple of weeks ago I read this - and I realized what a fool I had been to actually trust the Fourth Claims Counsel to actually have my best interests at heart.
- First, when the appraiser originally advised the Third Claims Counsel "If the estimated Cost to Cure is less than the difference of the "Before and After Value", the Cost to Cure is considered to be the appropriate measure of damages." To me this means that at the time of the first appraisal, the appraiser determined that the "Before and After Value" was greater.
- The reason it was decided to do a second appraisal was because of my complaint to the Department of Insurance and not because a replacement value for an easement in Napa Valley could be to a different road in a different county.
- Even though one would think because of #1 is logical the Fourth Claims Counsel already feels that the second appraisal "will likely be lower."
- It is already felt that I might "complain".
- And finally, even though the property was foreclosed on because it was not marketable without the lost easement - they will then raise the foreclosure as an issue.