Some windows are still boarded up on the empty building at the corner of de Maisonneuve Boulevard and Melville Avenue—nearly a year after the Nov. 30, 2005 fire.
Fire victims seek answers from insurance company
By Daniel Bartlett
After having their condos damaged in a fire almost a year ago, some Westmount residents are frustrated with the building’s insurance company and have been forced to live at other locations in the meantime.
Last Nov. 30, the condo building at 4500 de Maisonneuve was damaged after a fire started in a kitchen on the second floor. Since then, about 18 condo owners have had to find another place to live as the building gets repaired.
Now, some residents are growing weary with the wait, claiming the building’s insurance company is taking too long and have done very little but stonewall its clients. Robert David is one of those clients.
“(It’s been) almost a year now. They have not seen fit to rebuild the building,� he said. “They are just ignoring us at this point.�
Since the fire, David and his wife have had to rent a one-bedroom apartment while still having to pay their mortgage fees. He said that although the residents’ individual insurance companies have been helpful, the building’s insurance company, the AXA Group, has dragged the situation along.
“As time goes on, we’re wearing down. Their hope is that we’ll be weakened and we’ll say whatever to get us back (in the building),� he said.
In April, David said the plans outlined by the residents’ contractor were accepted by the City. Negotiations between the contractor and AXA have also been ongoing but, he said, both parties cannot agree on everything yet. As a result, some repairs have not been started.
“The insurance company has said they’ve agreed on some things so go ahead with that,� he said. “They can’t go ahead and get a subcontractor and say do half the work. Everything is linked to something else. Companies just don’t work that way.�
Suzie Pellerin, manager of the communication department at AXA, said the insurance company is working hard on the building’s dossier and has given three payments already. Due to confidentiality purposes, Pellerin couldn’t state how much has been given but assured that it is “quite a big amount.
“Our vice-president already talked to those people, the people involved,� she said. “(We also) received a report from the engineer.�
Pellerin said that since the building was erected in 1957, the insurance company has to review what needs to be redone to ensure that it is up to today’s standards.
“When something happens like a fire, we have to be in line with the norms,� she said. “If you have a building with four floors in 1957, you didn’t need an elevator. Today, you do.�
With some residents complaining that they cannot get in contact with AXA, Pellerin said the building’s syndicate hired a contractor who would conduct communication between the residents and the insurance company. She advised that if any residents need to get in contact with AXA for any reason, the most effective way is to go through their contractor.
“It’s a David-and-Goliath situation,� said condo owner Ann McWhinnie. “I don’t know what benefit the insurance company can get by delaying the process.�
McWhinnie, who has also been forced to rent out an apartment with her cat while the building gets repaired, doesn’t understand why the situation is taking so long.
“I think it’s very unfair for them to put us through something like this,� she said. “I just want to go home. I don’t want a mansion—I just want to go home.�
Weather: Montreal, July 9th 2008 / 23°C
/ Overcast
/ Wind: 22 Km/h / Humidity: 83 % 
Steven Guilbeault - 
Carol Pass
Comment online since December 14th 2006380 days.
The Insurer (AXA) says that the building just needs ‘repair’ and as such, they do not need to regard elements of Building Code compliance as such, since ‘they do not need to be applied for a repair-only situation’. This is notwithstanding that the building was gutted entirely and is a hollow shell. To boot, it is reported that the Insurer’s adjuster claims that this is the first time he has seen this ruling applied by the Insurer in such a manner in the history of his forty odd year career in the field.
And so, our 'cadillac policy' for coverage of the building for over 3 million dollars * is resulting in the co-owners being asked to make up the difference for bringing the originally five decades or so aged building up to current building codes, to the modest tune, taxes included, of around a half million dollars, that is, out of the pockets of the eleven unit owners themselves **. This figure is actually comparable to the reconstruction award granted thus far by the Insurer under the policy@, for this five alarm fire loss that took away most of the roof and upper floors and lasted the better part of a night, nearly thirteen months ago (and no agreement in sight yet).
This reminds me of a bad joke :
A man goes away for a weekend trip and returns to find his residence burgled. He puts in a call to his broker to claim for his rather substantial loss, asking the Broker to come over to complete and file quickly a full report of the incident. The broker commiserates, and then inquires, “Was there a fire ?�. “No,� is the reply, “Why do you ask?� “I wish you well, dear (client). You will not be able to use my services today, I’m sorry! Your (?cadillac) policy with us is for coverage against loss in the case of ‘fire and theft’, but since you had no fire, you have, sadly, no claim to file with me! I guess that you might better have had the special coverage for ‘fire or theft’ (and not ‘fire and theft’). Better luck next time!�
*A Policy which does stipulate, in its terms, reconstruction to Code and By-Law requirements [CCP-1 page 3 Coverage A (c ) Building By-Laws:] and which was also, by the way, emphasized by the Insurer’s representative in our single and unique meeting about a year ago : “Yes, we will be required to fully respect the Code requirements in the damage reconstruction award.�(paraphrase)
** for fulfillment of National Building Code electrical, plumbing, air, safety etc. standards. Note that multiple accepted authorities have been relied upon by the Insured for the provision of certifiable Code requirement needs as such.
@ the bill to the policy holders currently represents a significant third of the total estimated reconstruction budget (for construction to Code, as requested by the Municipalities concerned)