<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>To both Brian and Avery:
<BR>
<BR>A letter written by a qualified, and I presume both of you are qualified,
<BR>piano technician stating that a piano which has been subjected to the amount
<BR>of water that both of you describe, should, "in my professional opinion," be
<BR>declared a complete loss. If the insurance company is not satisfied with one
<BR>technician's answer, then have them pay for a second opinion. Just make sure
<BR>they call another "qualified technician," and not just some guy who once read
<BR>a book on how a piano works.
<BR>
<BR>One thing to remember, and I have spoken of this many times before. Insurance
<BR>is supposed to pay to restore an item to the condition the item was in before
<BR>the accident happened, or pay for a new one if the insured has replacement
<BR>value insurance, which most of them do. This is true in cases of fire,
<BR>floods, broken water pipes, earthquakes, etc.
<BR>
<BR>In both of these cases, however, too much water was brought in contact with
<BR>the piano to repair either one of them, period. It is impossible. The pianos
<BR>might dry out, but the long term effect of the water damage is unknown. It
<BR>might take 10 years before the real damage might be discovered, like rusty
<BR>wires, loose glue joints, and cracked soundboards. By then the claim will be
<BR>closed, and the customer will never get their money out of the insurance
<BR>company.
<BR>
<BR>Willem </FONT></HTML>