<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html><head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head>They are subject to waiting because the technician is on the hook if they certify the piano healthy before the actual outcome is known. If it takes time for problems to manifest themselves then it's simply their job to disclose that. If the insurance company insists on an immediate assessment of potential long term problems or a certification that there won't be any then the tech would be wise to simply declare it a total loss and explain why an earlier and reliable assessment may not be possible. In no way should the tech put themselves at risk here.. <p>David Love<br/>www.davidlovepianos.com<br/>(sent from bb)</p><hr/><div><b>From: </b> J Patrick Draine <jpdraine@gmail.com>
</div><div><b>Sender: </b> pianotech-bounces@ptg.org
</div><div><b>Date: </b>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:52:46 -0400</div><div><b>To: </b><pianotech@ptg.org></div><div><b>ReplyTo: </b> pianotech@ptg.org
</div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [pianotech] Water damaged piano</div><div><br/></div>Good posts from a number of folks, but I don't see why the piano owner should be subject to months of waiting before they can be assured they have a functioning musical instrument without a cloud hanging over it. I think encouraging the insurance company to replace the instrument (or at least the pre-claim value) is the most straightforward way to proceed. If the technician sees potential value in the now problematic instrument, he could suggest a "salvage value", and make an offer. If he's "lucky" he might come out ahead (or a higher bidder might get "stuck" if he is overly optimistic and things turn bad).<div>
Patrick Draine<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Mike Spalding <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike.spalding1@frontier.com">mike.spalding1@frontier.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Rob,<br>
<br>
Here's an excerpt from an inspection report I wrote in Oct. 2010 for a U1 that was in a flooded basement. In this case, the insurance company was willing to wait 6 months to settle, and the piano remained in the owners' home. If you like it, feel free to lift the parts that work for you.<br>
<br>
"The piano was partially submerged (approximately 4” above bottom of knee-board, 8” above floor) during a recent flood.The owner minimized the damage by 1) immediately lifting the piano up on wood blocks, 2) cleaning, drying, and dehumidifying the room and the piano with2 room dehumidifiers.At the time I inspected the piano, the internal relative humidity of the piano was 55%.<br>
<br>
All damage from immersion will not manifest immediately; it generally will appear in 3 phases:<br>
<br>
1Immediate damage from the saturation and swelling of the wood, such as rust, glue failure, finish failure.This is what my recent inspection looked at.<br>
<br>
2Damage duringthe drying out process due to shrinkage of the wood, including cracks, glue failure, finish failure.It is too soon to see this damage, as the piano has not totally dried out yet.<br>
<br>
3Damage during subsequent years, due to weakening of materials during the immersion and initial drying.In effect, this is a shortening of the life of the piano:repairs which might be normal during the latter years of a piano’s life simply come earlier.Fear in the market place of this type of damage will never go away – a piano that has been in water suffers a permanent reduction in its market value.The likelihood of some structural failures can be reduced by reinforcing some glued joints with screws or other mechanical fasteners, and replacing critical metal parts, such as strings or casters, which have begun to corrode.<br>
<br>
Because the piano still retains significant moisture, my recent inspection only covers phase 1 damage, which is minimal.The most significant findings are rusted strings and casters, and swollen wood.The detailed itemization is attached.My findings are completely consistent with the report by Xxxx Yyyyy RPT Dated 8-10-2010.At this time, no repairs are recommended.<br>
<br>
I recommend that the piano be inspected again in January or February, at which time the humidity in the piano should be at it’s seasonal minimum.At that time we can put together a recommendation of repairs to phase 1 and phase 2 damage, and preventive action aimed at phase 3.Alternatively, if the insurance company will allow, the piano can be observed for a longer period of time to see what additional damage might manifest."<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/13/2011 2:47 PM, Rob McCall wrote:<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So, does anyone have any proven methods of dealing with the insurance and the flood mitigation company that want solutions yesterday? The insurance company wants to pay it out, the owner wants their piano back, and the flood company doesn't want to store it.<br>
<br>
I have no problem telling them that it needs to sit for awhile to see what will come up in the next few months, but it would be nice to have some tried and true method, verbiage, or something to drive the point home. Or maybe I can send them an estimate for what I found, plus some sort of disclaimer or caveat to cover the issues (and my rear) that may (will) come up 4-6 months down the road?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Rob<br>
<br>
On Oct 13, 2011, at 05:05 , Mike Spalding wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Rob,<br>
<br>
Now that you've made a thorough inspection, thoroughly documented with notes and photos, the thing to do is wait through the dry season ( or longer if the insurance company will allow it) then re-inspect the piano to see if any new damage shows up.<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</html>