stormdog | Entries tagged with insurance

Our final paperwork from insurance got here for us to sign. It has a cost breakdown that seems to be exclusive of the construction/rebuild work. They spent over $33,000 on rent for our temporary furnished apartment, which kind of blows my mind. They paid the condo corporation $10,000 for something unspecified, and $35,00 to us and a disaster response company for what looks like a combination of personal possession replacement and disaster mitigation work. With a few other things, it comes out to $79,004. Without the construction work, and repair work for neighboring units, whose total probably dwarfs the rest.

If we hadn't had insurance, we would be bankrupt so many times over. We have one last check coming for about $1000.

Stuff from yesterday:

I went to the dog park with the intent of walking for an hour while Ella ran around, but the whole place was like walking through a living cloud of mosquitoes. Someone even gave me some bug spray and they were *still* getting me. Ugh. I left after about 10 minutes.

In the evening, I unexpectedly smelled a burning-related smell and had a rush of fear. I had to be 100% sure that the smell was outside (it was) before that fear reduced. I'm not sure if it was the wildfire smoke making it to southern Saskatchewan or if it was neighbors barbecuing, or what. But I closed the windows again.

Also yesterday evening, with the kitchen cabinetry being installed in the condo in the near future, Miriam and I talked about still not knowing how insurance is going to pay for appliances, what our budget for them is, when they should be chosen, or anything like that. At some point, our adjuster said that they would be covered by the condo corporations policy not ours.

We asked the rebuild manager, Pamela, who's been managing lighting, plumbing, flooring, cabinetry, and just about everything, about it. She said we should ask our insurance adjuster. We asked him and he said we should talk to the condo board and/or their adjuster. We asked them and they said we should talk to the contractor that is doing the work. We thought that was Pamela, since her title is flooring/rebuild manager and told the condo adjuster she told us to talk to our insurance.

The condo adjuster said we should talk to a project manager at the company Pamela is with and that Pamela is a flooring manager, not a project manager, so she can't help us with this. Her title in her email signature is flooring/rebuild manager, but ok. Now we're waiting on hearing from a different person at Pamela's company.

We are having some anxiety that it will turn out *nobody* is paying for the appliances and that they will come out of our personal possessions fund in direct contradiction to what our adjuster told us months ago, but he's a crappy communicator so it could happen. We have not been budgeting any of that for replacing appliances, so that would throw a wrench in things.

We also were just told, by the condo insurance adjuster, that our stove will *not* be covered because it caused the fire. If our adjuster didn't suck at his job, we would have known that *long* ago and been able to plan around it.

There's been just one really competent person in all of this; Pamela. Her communication is great and she gets shit done. We're going to send her an email once this is all over telling her how much we appreciate her unusual and remarkable level of effectiveness. She's really been a pleasure to work with.
And lastly, it just feels petty to me to not cover the stove, you know?

It's not as wonderful a thing as our other news today, but the replacement CD changer I bought arrived in the mail today. I couldn't find any CDs in it; Miriam thinks maybe the seller noticed them while packing it and took them out. I was only able to plug it into my computer to test at first, since we didn't have an amp, but as I suspected, it seems 100% functional. The carousel spins, it detects loaded CDs, loads them, and plays them. The analog and digital outputs both work too. I played Birdhouse in Your Soul and while I listened and watched the CD player's display, I cried a little. It feels kind of ridiculous, but this one little step toward a sort of pre-fire normalcy suddenly hit me kind of hard.

I also went out today and bought a used surround sound system from a Kijiji seller. Insurance gave us a budget of around $400 to replace what was a really outdated Onkyo 5.1 receiver that I bought for $20 on Kijiji. For $300, we got a 2007 Yamaha 7.1 receiver that supports HDMI 1.2, a right/left/center set of Technics speakers, two Boston Acoustics speakers for the rear, and a Polk Audio sub. The sub has a blown driver that the owner did not disclose, but I honestly think she didn't know about it. Her dad is moving into an assisted living place and she's working on selling a lot of his stuff. It looks like I can get a refoaming kit for that specific sub for about $20, so I may try refoaming my first driver surround.

So we replaced the burned receiver with a better one than we had, plus an entire 5.1 speaker set which we *didn't* have, for about $100 under the insurance replacement budget for our old receiver. I am pleased. Once I got it set up, I connected my Klipsches to it and played a little TMBG and it was just so nice to have nice sound again!

I was really tempted to set up all the speakers so I can play Breath of the Wild in surround sound, but I think the complication of figuring out where to put the rear speakers in this place where we're only living temporarily isn't worth it to me.

Someone in Fenelon Falls, Ontario is selling a serviced Marantz 2270 with the original optional wooden cabinet for $2175 CAD, pick-up only. I did the math and it would cost $828 in gas to get there and back, which makes it totally unreasonable. I thought it might be, but it's really disappointing to see the numbers. I really miss long road trips. I would *love* to make a trip like that, just to replace something special I lost in the fire. It feels poetic.

I did the math for my old Suzuki Swift, too. It would only have been $459 in gas, which would still make the whole thing not make sense, alas. It's already over our replacement budget, so I suppose with adding shipping, even if the seller would ship, it wouldn't be a reasonable choice either.

I so, so wish I could just pick up and drive somewhere days away right now. I'm not at my stablest these days, but I kind of want to cry.

Anyway, I just emailed our adjuster to confirm that buying something used is an option and what info he needs if we do that.

Insurance has approved our proposed alternates for the stereo, the turntable, and the monitor Miriam was borrowing from work. We approved the new assessment report, so the next thing is that we'll get a check for the "assessed cash value" (ACV) of the items. After we buy replacements and send receipts, we are further reimbursed up to, at maximum, the full assessed replacement value.

I was waking up as Miriam told me we'd gotten that email, and for whatever reason, my initial response was deep fear. That I had done something wrong, that insurance company and adjuster would be angry and not want to deal with me, and other more nebulous fears I can't really identify. It was a lot; enough to give me a panic attack if Miriam hadn't been there to give me some snuggles and help me stay grounded.

But that's the next step of all of this done. Once we get the ACV check, we'll start buying stuff in earnest. We may end up with a bunch of things like furniture pieces or who-knows-what in boxes in the spare room here, but far better that then moving into the new place and not having a bed!

So now I have a decision to make about replacing my vintage Marantz. Insurance approved the more expensive (and honestly more appropriate) integrated amp I proposed, which puts the replacement value for the item potentially within a few hundred dollars of getting an actual vintage 2270 in good condition. Miriam thinks it would be reasonable to spend extra out of our own pocket on this to get the thing I really want, and I'm torn.

I absolutely didn't want the NR1200 they wanted to give me. But the PM8006 is a tough choice. It's fully analog (except for the electronics controlling the volume adjustment via remote control) and has amazing specs. The 2270's 0.3% total harmonic distortion, for instance, was pretty good for 1973, but the PM8006 has 0.02% THD. That's an impressive number.

And the 2270s out there are 50 years old now! I was *ridiculously* lucky to get one in good condition at a thrift store that was completely functional, and then have nothing go wrong with it for the years I was using it. Buying a used one with recent servicing is likely still out of reach for me unless I find a really good deal, and there's no reason something wouldn't go wrong with one that's in good, functional shape but hasn't been serviced. I was planning, someday, to replace whatever out-of-spec components existed inside inside of mine (mostly caps), and I would have enjoyed that, I think. But it's also intimidating.

And sure, the 2270 has higher distortion than the PM8006, but that distortion is part of the character of their sound. The nature of that distortion will be similar across all 2270s, because they all share the same design, build, and components; that's a big part of the 'vintage sound' that so many people love from these units. That, of course, will be different on the PM8006.

Once, I would have wanted the best specs possible, and the closest performance I could possibly get to a flat response across the whole audible spectrum. But now, for various reasons, the subjective experience is at least as important to me as any other aspect of listening.

And aside from the nature of the sound reproduction, part of the experience for me too was touching and using this 50-year-old piece of gear. Owning and taking care of a working piece of history. And when it comes down to it, the 2270 is just *prettier* with it's gorgeous blue-glowing radio dial and the horizontal tuning wheel and the shiny aluminum faceplate with that cursive script "Stereophonic Receiver" legend on it.

This is hard.

Okay, I sent our response to insurance! Now we wait again. Thanks to those who offered their input! Now it's time for the metaphorical 3-dimensional chess portion of the waiting process.

We weren't sure if we should send our response to the person at the third-party organization that did the assessment of our list of items. The adjuster said that to dispute an item, we should send the relevant information to him. So we sent it to the adjuster with our insurance company, and separately to the third party assessor. We sent it separately because we didn't know if she needed it, or if, given the adjuster didn't tell us to send it to her, he'd get pissy about us going over his head or something.

We haven't heard from our adjuster, but the third party employee responded at about 5:30, saying "I will reach out to your adjuster for approval to make these changes."

That *sounds* like she gets to make that decision on her own! Maybe all our appeals will be fine? Frankly, our adjuster's communication skills kind of suck, so it's hard to draw solid conclusions from things he says to us. I'm scared to get my hopes up too high though.

I'm trying to find a suitable replacement to give insurance for a unreasonably nice monitor Miriam was borrowing from work and the thing is made of pure unobtanium and there isn't anything much like it either. It was still listed on the Apple store for something like $800 CAD when we first filled out the list, but it's gone now. From there and everywhere else too.

It was an LG Ultrafine HKMY2VC/A, and we're now waiting to hear from her supervisor about the most important specs to him to match.

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-22MD4KA-B-4k-uhd-led-monitor

-------------

Long-time readers may recall that I found my late 300-disc CD player on a thrift store shelf marked at, I think, $20. The carousel wasn't rotating, so I looked inside and saw a bunch of random CDs scattered inside. After removing some it was rotating but making clunky noises. Turning the flashlight on my phone on, placing it on the carousel, and rotating it revealed yet more random CD's scattered around inside. I got those out and tried playing a disc and it worked just fine. This is why you unload these before moving them!

I bought my first piece of replacement gear on Ebay yesterday. The listing says the 300 disc changer is "Partially tested. Selling as is for parts only." The seller posted a video that shows it loading and playing a disc, but making some odd noises. They also included a bunch of pictures; in one of them, there's quite clearly a random CD sitting way in the back, off the carousel. It did take longer than expected to start playing a track, but that's probably because it was set to shuffle mode and had to seek to track 8 before starting.

The seller has lots of good feedback and I feel reasonably sure they are presenting it honestly. They also sell tons of *really* random crap. Miriam thinks they might be buying storage locker contents or something. A picture of the back shows some old dusty cables plugged in and attached to nothing. Because they are basically extraneous to the unit and add no value or information, and because of the nature of the stuff they sell, I extrapolate that the seller basically doesn't know enough about the device and its operation to find the problem or confirm that its working. I'm betting, literally since I just spent some insurance money on it, that it will get here and work just fine.

I guess I'll let you know sometime between the 15th of this month and the 8th of June, when it arrives from California.

If anyone is up to it and has time, I would really appreciate comments on the below. Specifically, I'd like to make it as simple, easy-to-understand, and non-confrontational as possible. Thank you!

Please forgive the formatting; it's much better as a PDF.

=============

Item 1: Your proposed replacement of a Marantz 2270 receiver with a Marantz NR1200 receiver

I propose the Marantz PM8006 as a much closer match for the destroyed 2270’s feature set than the suggested NR1200.

The 2270 possessed the following features that the NR1200 does not have:

• Dual phono preamp stages
• 3-way tone control with independent R/L channel adjustment
• Dedicated preamp and power amp connections for independent use
• 2 onboard mains power outlets
• Connection to output “raw” FM signal for processing by an offboard device.

The Marantz PM8006, though it still lacks dual phono preamps, mains outlets, and a raw FM connection, is a much closer match for the 2270. Points of comparison include:

• It matches the more limited feature set of the 2270 much more closely
◦ The NR1200 supports video, digital signals via coaxial or optical connections, wi-fi, home network connectivity, zoned simultaneous playback from separate sources, Bluetooth, media streaming, USB connectivity, and voice commands, none of which were/are supported by the 2700 or the PM8006
• It matches the 2270’s 3-way onboard tone controls, though it still does not allow independent channel adjustment.
◦ The NR1200 has 2-way tone control.
• It matches the 2270’s dedicated preamp and power amp connections.
◦ The NR1200 lacks dedicated power amp connectors.
• It matches the 2270’s power more closely at 70 watts per channel
◦ The NR1200 is more powerful at 75 watts per channel

The cost is justified because the next lowest tier product in Marantz’ line of integrated amplifiers (the PM7000N):

• Lacks 3-way tone control and dedicated power amp connections
• Is less powerful at 60 watts per channel
• Has many wireless and other connectivity features that the 2270 and the NR1200 did/do not

The PM8006, retailing at $1,999 CAD, also represents a smaller purchase than the original 2270, which retailed at $549.95 USD in 1973, or approximately $3600 USD now, adjusting for inflation.

Item 2: Your proposed replacement of a Realistic LAB-2000 linear tracking turntable with an Audio Technica AT-LP60XGM

I propose the Audio-Technica LP-120XUSB turntable as a better-suited replacement for the LAB-2000 table than the suggested AT-LP60XGM.

The proposed AT-LP60XGM has significant and fundamental differences from the LAB-2000. Most importantly, the LAB-2000 was a linear tracking turntable. This is a completely different design approach from a conventionally tracking design.

Linear tracking has become an exotic and prohibitively expensive feature. Similarly a table that combines fully automatic operation with direct drive, as the LAB-2000 did, is not currently on the market. Because the linear tracking feature was the most important aspect of this table, and because linear tracking was an attempt to resolve engineering problems related to tracking weight and skating force, an appropriate replacement would have quality, adjustable systems to manage those aspects of operation. I have also prioritized direct drive over automatic operation in evaluating replacements.

The below points detail the ways in which the LP-120XUSB is a closer match than the AT-LP60XGM as a replacement for the LAB-2000:

• It matches the missing functionality of a liner tracking system with a quality, adjustable system to manage tracking force and anti-skate
◦ Tracking force and anti-skate are not adjustable on the AT-LP60XGM
• It matches the LAB-2000s direct drive design, one of two fundamentally different designs for rotating the platter
◦ The AT-LP60XGM uses belt drive
• It better matches the quality level of the LAB-2000
◦ The LAB-2000 was the most expensive turntable in the Realistic product line, retailing at $259.95 USD in 1983. While the full retail price adjusted for inflation (over $900 USD) is unrealistic, the fact that the AT-LP60XGM’s current retail price is about $50 less than the price of the LAB-2000 was 40 years ago is telling regarding the quality of the product.
• It matches the LAB-2000’s stroboscopic timing light to confirm correct speed at a glance
◦ The AT-LP60XGM does not have a stroboscopic timing light
• It matches the LAB-2000’s ability to make fine manual adjustments of speed
◦ The AT-LP60XGM has no provisions for manual speed adjustment.

I think I might be done with my argument for the replacement for my receiver! Looking at integrated amplifiers today instead of receivers led me to items with much smaller feature sets that are closer to my 2270. This makes sense because receivers were always meant as an "all-in-one" solution to replace separate components, and there are a lot more jobs for them to do now.

The PM8006 integrated amp's limited feature set is *much* closer to my 2270. Unlke their proposed NR1200, it does *not* do video, does *not* do optical or coaxial digital connections, does *not* do wireless (or any network connectivity at all for that matter), does *not* do zoned simultaneous playback from separate sources, does *not* do streaming, does *not* do voice commands, does *not* have USB connectivity, and is 70 watts per channel like my 2270 (their proposed one was bigger at 75 wpc). Unlike their proposed replacement, it has 3-way tone control and a dedicated external connection to the power amp stage like my 2270 did. It's also Marantz' lowest tier integrated amp with those features.

The fact that it costs $1000 more is mostly, but not completely, incidental.

A quote from a Youtube review I just watched:

"By today's standards, this amplifier is hopelessly outdated. It can do nothing but amplify. But it does it perfectly. That's why audiophiles love it so much."

YES! THEY GET IT!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6xr354-RZo

I've been thinking about this language in the insurance contract. In fact, I asked my brother, who was a lawyer but is no longer practicing law, if he has time to talk to me about this stuff because I'm really curious.

"We will not pay for increased costs that result when you cannot repair or replace your property because material or parts are unavailable, obsolete or outmoded. In the event that new property of like kind and quality is not obtainable because material or parts are unavailable or obsolete, new property which is as similar as possible to that damaged or destroyed and which is capable of performing the same function shall be deemed to be new property of like kind and quality."

There is ambiguity about this in several forms; some in the language itself, and some in how to interpret that language in the context of some decisions that have been made in my claim.

"...which is capable of performing the same function..." How finely can you slice up functionality? The receivers, as an example. They both play audio on two channels at around 70 watts per channel. Good enough? But the vintage one had tone knobs that could adjust tone independently on the right and left channels and the new one does not. Is that a sufficiently important 'function' to complain about?

What makes an extra cost a function of obsolescence? Due to lack of use and need, modern audio gear doesn't tend to have extra mains outlets on the back side. This is a lack of functionality on the proposed new receiver, but is that functionality actually something that was in place because of reasons that are now obsolete? Would that make the extra cost of a replacement unit that has them a cost related to obsolescence, which would mean it's not covered? Even though I use them with my other vintage hardware like my turntable?

The language doesn't have any provisions for what to do if a new item of like functionality is simply not available. I might have thought that that means the closest possible match, no matter how different in functionality, will be provided. No one is making 300-disc CD changers anymore. The closest new property of like kind and quality and capable of performing something resembling the same function would probably be some kind of stand-alone single CD player. But their proposed replacement is a used 300 disc changer, so obviously, if the difference is large enough, they sometimes propose a replacement that is *not* new. How much difference does there need to be for that to be the solution?

Along those lines, they propose replacing my slide rule with a slide rule even though a new item of like quality (if not kind) that is capable of performing the same function is easy and cheap to find; a pocket calculator that does log and trig functions. By proposing a slide rule instead, they are accepting increased costs that come from the property being unavailable, obsolete, or outmoded, which the contract says they will not do.

Another bit of language in the contract says "We agree to pay for insured loss or damage to Personal Property on the basis of Replacement Cost provided that: a) the property at the time of the loss was useable for its original purpose..."

How finely can we slice up original purpose? My receiver was being used for its original purpose of playing music. However, one particular feature, the quadradial out jack, was not being used for its original purpose, because that purpose was speculative in the first place and never came to fruition. But I can use that jack for a different purpose; monitoring RDS information by sending unfiltered FM signal to a computer, for instance. I'm planning to argue that functionality afforded by that kind of output is missing from the proposed replacement and thus it is not capable of performing the same function. But is that a valid argument if that specific *feature* of the item is no longer used for its original purpose?

I feel like these are probably the kind of questions that end up getting adjudicated in court, and the winner would end up being the entity with the best lawyer.

I also wonder whether these contracts could be written more clearly to address these kinds of edge cases, and, if so, whether there is some financial incentive on the part of insurance companies not to create such contracts. Maybe they save more money via legal adjudication of disagreements than they pay in fees to settle such disagreements. I mean, I certainly don't want to spend a bunch of money on a lawyer for something like this where the difference in value is only between $1000 to $1500, and I might have a decision made against me anyway.

But these are the things I wonder about.

The insurance claim is going to involve a lot more work, I think. We got a listing back and there are lots of things to dispute, and our computer parts list is missing entirely.

And they want to replace my Marantz 2270 receiver with this.......thing.

https://www.marantz.com/en-ca/product/av-receivers/nr1200

Do any of you know modern audio hardware well? This is the beginning of my argument that the receiver insurance suggested as a replacement does not suit my needs, and I'm wondering if there is other modern hardware that does. Or if you can think of any features of the 2270 I'm missing that aren't there in the modern one.

Phono input jack(s):
The 2270 had two phono input jacks, while the NR1200 has only one. I value the ability to use two turntables simultaneously to be able to compare quality of audio head-to-head, or to be able to switch records only with the delay of pressing the phono1/phono2 selector instead of having to remove a record from the turntable platter and place another one.

Tone adjustment knobs:
the NR1200 you suggested has two tone control knobs: one for treble and one for bass. The 2270 had three knobs for tone control, handling bass, mid-range, and treble. Also, the controls on the 2270 allowed independant adjustment of the left and right channels for each frequency range, while the NR1200 does not.

Jumpered preamp to power amp connection:
This connection on the back panel lets the user operate the preamp stage and power amp stage independently of each other, using any external preamp or power amp the user may prefer along with the counterpart stage in the 2270. One application of this would be for operating bi-amped speakers, where rather than a crossover network, the tweeter(s) and woofer(s) recieve signal from two different amps, allowing fine-tuning of the amplifer properties for low and high frequency sound. The 2270 could thus be used either as one of a pair of amps for the speakers, or the preamp output could be split and run to two different external amps and then to the bi-amped speakers.

"Quadradial" out jack.
The 2270s' quadradial out jack outputs "raw" FM signal, extracted from before any equalization is applied. Originally, the intent of this jack was to allow for connection to upcoming hardware to recieve quadraphonic FM broadcasts. Those broadcasts never came to be. However, this output also allows connection to a stand-alone RDS (radio data system) interpreter. The NR1200 you suggested does have onboard RDS display, but it does not allow for any special uses of that data such as connecting the output to a computer for processing and use by a system like RDS Spy (https://rdsspy.com/).

Back to working on the insurance claim this morning. We're so close to having the schedule of loss done and ready to submit!

We are required to use their form, so Miriam figured out a way to overlay our tracking spreadsheet onto a scanned copy of their form to print and it saved *so* much hand-writing. We have over 50 pages of this list, at 8 items per page, and each item requires a make, description, model, list of special features, quantity, cost of replacement, and name of replacement source.

I've printed out all of it and now Miriam and I need to hand-sign every page. I'm also finding and fixing a few small errors as I go and reprinting individual pages as necessary.

Yesterday was a high dysphoria day.

98% of the time, I feel fabulous about how well laser on my face has worked to reduce beard shadow and make me feel better about going out looking fem. Even looking at the patchy spots where hair is growing, I feel good because it's so much better than it was.

But yesterday I was looking in the mirror and seeing the majority of what's left on my chin and neck coming in gray, and all the dark hairs that are especially still on my upper lip and I was like "great, now I feel dysphoric *and* old.

But today is a new day, and the bad things will pass.

I found a Livejournal post with the model of the slide rule I lost in the fire, and a picture too! It was a bamboo Post Versatrig 1450, manufactured in Japan by Hemmi in August of 1967 by the serial number. Now I can try to price a replacement for the insurance claim. This is why I can never get rid of my Livejournal. *laughs*

It feels like we're so close to having this claim done, yet so far. The remaining stuff is all tricky to figure out details of.

https://stormdog.livejournal.com/1311999.html

Miriam had a monitor as a loan from work that we need to replace. It costs $879.95. Admittedly, I'm using to buying $20-$40 dollar monitors at thrift stores, but I can't imagine ever spending that much money on a monitor. Nothing could look *that* good!

I had another "Have you actually done this before?" moment with our insurance adjuster.

I forwarded him the letter from SMI saying we are liable for smoke and soot damage to another unit. He wrote:
"I will deal with this. Both insurers are smi on this so should be interesting to see how its handled"

Should be interesting to see how it's handled? Meaning you don't already know? Miriam and I were told, in a reassuring manner, by one of the other official people involved in all this (I think it was the condo board's insurance adjuster) that our adjuster is one of the best in Regina. Maybe that's concerning: doesn't being a "good" insurance adjuster mean you pay out less in claims and save your agency money?

Miriam and I are trying our best to finish the schedule of loss for the insurance claim this weekend.

The insurance form wants a place of purchase for each item. Is "next to the dumpster outside our apartment" a valid response? Because that's actually where I got at least three pieces of furniture we were using. 🙂

I'll just leave those blank.

---

I'm trying to remember what make/model the slide rule I lost in the fire was. Of course, I seem to have photos of the *other* slide rules I own, which are all still in Wisconsin, but the one I had with me? I have one picture in which you can see the end of the case behind a water glass. Not so helpful.

It's also proving difficult to value some of the SLR lenses I thrifted. I had a manual focus, 400mm f5.6 Sigma Pentax K-mount that I only have a picture of from above mounted on a body. It's hard to tell the exact model, and almost everything on eBay is auto-focus anyway. I have most of the camera gear here, albeit water-logged and sooty. But that lens, I didn't find in the post-fire mess. It was big and in its own case somewhere, unlike the ones that were all in my camera backpack.

Our insurance adjuster knows we aren't living at the condo. He was physically there with us after the fire! He is, I assume, involved in the billing for repair work. His company is *paying* for our current apartment.
But his company sent a check I was expecting to arrive, but hadn't, to the condo address. At least I have it now so I can pay the person who did the hard drive recovery. He's probably kind of annoyed at this point and I wouldn't blame him.

Also in the mail at the condo today was a letter from an insurance adjuster saying that we may be "100% liable" for smoke and soot damage to a neighboring unit, and we should put him in touch with our liability insurance provider. If I understand correctly, he is representing Saskatchewan Mutual. Miriam and my policy is *also* through Saskatchewan Mutual.

Commencing introduction of right hand to left hand.

I'm looking at my insurance plan's big ol' book of benefits. Under "Treatment for Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse" there is no specific subheading for psychotherapy. Under subheading "counseling" it says "See Treatment for Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Section." The closest thing to therapy I found is "Outpatient Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse," under which category I have a $20 /$40 copay per visit. When I decided on my insurance plan, I assumed that would cover counseling/psychotherapy. Was I wrong?

I'll get in touch with the insurance people today and see what's up.