Tags - Popular | FAQ  

PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 09/03/2008 3:49 PM by  Ray Hall
Settle an argument about a pool
 22 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
swink_d
Member
Member
Posts:96


--
09/02/2008 8:40 AM

    I see I misspelled settle   ( Can't go back and edit that part)

     

    Not a claim  just a house I was at

    I say the pool is part of the dwelling as there is a contious foundation from the house . Each elevation  down is a concrete slab with block walls and  foundation all tied together to the house

    Someone else says its APS  paid at ACV .

     

    The photo is small as all I had was the phone.

     

     

    Attachments
    0
    Tim_Johnson
    Member
    Member
    Posts:243


    --
    09/02/2008 8:58 AM
    That is so much a part of the dwelling.
    Tim Johnson
    0
    Tom Toll
    Moderator & Life Member
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:1865


    --
    09/02/2008 9:21 AM

    I agree with both of you. If this were a stand alone pool and not tied to the dwelling, it would be considered APS. As the walkways, walls, etc. are all tied to the dwelling, it should be considered a part of the dwelling coverage. Of course, it will be a company decision, only a suggestion from us.

    Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
    0
    swink_d
    Member
    Member
    Posts:96


    --
    09/02/2008 9:34 AM
    Its not a claim , just a house in the neighborhood

    It's a bet i have with another adjuster : )

    0
    Ray Hall
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:2443


    --
    09/02/2008 10:04 AM

    IT's APS. A dwelling must be a one, two or three family residence. A pool is not a residence, but can be part of the residence. The best definition in the HO-3 is with in the other structures in Coverage B. To be a dwelling it must be described in the policy, with a physical address and the type walls and roof.

    0
    BobH
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:759


    --
    09/02/2008 10:11 AM
    I would consider it APS. I don't care if the London Bridge connects it to the house, it is an appurtenant structure.
    Bob H
    0
    Ray Hall
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:2443


    --
    09/02/2008 10:26 AM

    Glad we are back on the same page , Bob.

    0
    ekraft
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:30


    --
    09/02/2008 10:31 AM

    APS.  Had the same situation come up a while back.....

    0
    Tom Toll
    Moderator & Life Member
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:1865


    --
    09/02/2008 11:37 AM

    I worked a claim a while back and the company considered it a a part of the dwelling, as it was attached to the structure. As I said, it sometimes is a company decision. You would think it would be APS, as it does not fit the definition of dwelling. Isn't adjusting fun.

    Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
    0
    Leland
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:741


    --
    09/02/2008 12:08 PM
    I have an article about a slab poured in Hawaii for a Hindu temple - they used fly ash instead of cement, and no rebar. It was poured in one go with 107 truckloads.

    It is theoretically possible to make one continuous pour (no cold joints) for a concrete house and pool combined. I just don't think it has ever been done before. (Why would anyone?).

    I also seriously doubt that the pool coping is connected (with rebar?) to the deck AND the deck is connected to the wall, etc, and connected to the house. Without a close inspection I can't say for sure, but I bet the pool; deck, wall, and house were constructed independently of each other- in other words "cold joints".

    A cold joint between two concrete structures does not, in my opinion, meet the definition of attachment.

    Rebar, bolts, nails, screws, joist hangers, construction adhesive, etc. might be considered attachment.

    A pool poured in place, and then a deck poured next to it etc. is not "attachment".

    Also be careful of differences between HO policies and DP policies.
    0
    Ray Hall
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:2443


    --
    09/02/2008 12:36 PM

    great post Leland. When the HO language sounds like it might be either coverage... I always reach for the old standard fire and EC and then the DP's the underwriters intents are usally spelled out by the "older" policys

    0
    Leland
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:741


    --
    09/02/2008 12:58 PM
    Here's a case from the Oklahoma supreme court about whether some carpeting should be considered presonal property or part of the dwelling:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...l=1960ok41

    An excerpt below

    " The evidence as to the carpeting was; that the rug pad was cemented around the edges in order to keep it from crawling or getting loose. The rug was nailed with small cement nails underneath the molding where there is a small piece of wood nailed to the floor around the edges of the room; that the carpeting could be removed, but that some molding was replaced after the carpeting was removed.

    It appears to us from the above evidence that the small amount of glue used around the edges of the pad, and the small tacks on the edges of the carpet were for the purpose of holding it in place and not for fixing it permanently to the floor. "

    So in the above case the court ruled that even though the carpet was attached with some nails and glue, EVEN THAT wasn't enough to consider the carpet part of the dwelling.

    I know this is apples and oranges (carpert vs. pool, different state, APS vs. personal property), but the point is still made.

    In my opinion the OK court may have gone a little too far the other way saying this particular carpet was NOT part of the dwelling but you can see their way of thinking.

    Unless you can show me how that pool is really mechanically, structurally connected/attached to the dwelling I would consider it APS.

    Of course there could be case law in a particular state that would overide my opinion.


    0
    LarryW
    Member
    Member
    Posts:114


    --
    09/02/2008 1:31 PM
    Suppose the pool filter and pump are located within the attached (to the dwelling) garage. Pool als has a light connected to the dwelling by conduit and wire. Is it still APS?
    No one is absolutely worthless, at the very least you can serve as a bad example.
    0
    Jud G.
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:509


    --
    09/02/2008 1:37 PM

    If it's a CP 10 10 covering it, you'd need a separate endorsement regardless of its connection to the building, but you still have a ways to go in getting the right peril to cover a loss to the pool. 

    Then again, that's not saying much since that policy doesn't cover fences, antennas, bridges, or any other paved surfaces..

    0
    Leland
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:741


    --
    09/02/2008 1:45 PM
    Larry's question is a great one. That's the type of question I would submit to the carrier.

    It is very similar to the question as to whether an underground septic tank or an outdoor AC unit is part of the dweliing, it's been discussed here before.

    Most adjusters would not consider the electic line alone to be enough to make something attached to the dwelling.

    Larry- is the pool pump attached (bolted down?) to the garage?
    0
    Ray Hall
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:2443


    --
    09/02/2008 9:39 PM

    A dwelling can be insured by a fire and EC policy. The dwelling has to have an address listed on the dec. sheet. Under the fire forms for residence you have some dwelling extensions. Detached garage, other buildings fences sidewalks etc. But pools are not lncluded.

    When the homeowners policy began pools (in ground) were added with a new definition Other structures. A dwelling can have a pool, but a pool can not be insured under a fire policy (inland Marine) therefore it cant have a dwelling as another structure or put another way other structures can never be the main dwelling, but it could be a guest house. Read the definitions and the contract and it becomes very clear. If the pool floated out of the ground what peril would this be? Have you ever heard of a dwelling with a slab foundation ever floating out of the ground?

     

     

    0
    swink_d
    Member
    Member
    Posts:96


    --
    09/02/2008 10:44 PM

    HO3 10

    A. Coverage A – Dwelling
    1. We cover:
    a. The dwelling on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling; and
    b. Materials and supplies located on or next to the "residence premises" used to construct, alter or repair the dwelling or other structures on the "residence premises."
    2. We do not cover land, including land on which the dwelling is located.

    B. Coverage B – Other Structures
    1. We cover other structures on the "residence premises" set apart from the dwelling by clear space. This includes structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection.
    2. We do not cover:
    a. Land, including land on which the other structures are located;
    b. Other structures rented or held for rental to any person not a tenant of the dwelling, unless used solely as a private garage;
    c. Other structures from which any "business" is conducted; or
    d. Other structures used to store "business" property. However, we do cover a structure that contains "business" property solely owned by an "insured" or a tenant of the dwelling provided that "business" property does not include gaseous or liquid fuel, other than fuel in a permanently installed fuel tank of a vehicle or craft parked or stored in the structure.
    3. The limit of liability for this coverage will not be more than 10% of the limit of liability that applies to Coverage A. Use of this coverage does not reduce the Coverage A limit of liability.

    0
    swink_d
    Member
    Member
    Posts:96


    --
    09/02/2008 10:50 PM

    How about the  Porch on the left ? 

     

    The one at the top left that is a permently attached to the concrete  that is the back entrance ?

     

     

     

     

     

    0
    HuskerCat
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:762


    --
    09/02/2008 11:22 PM

    OK, I'll enter the fray now too.  The pool?  APS all the way in my opinion.  Not within the confines of the residence dwelling, connected perhaps only by surface concrete...but otherwise separate from the dwelling.  No different than a detached garage with a sidewalk or patio between it and the dwelling.  Likewise, your last post about the "porch" or whatever it is...there is "clear space" from what we can see and it is a separate structure from the dwelling.  If there is an unseen walkway/connection to the dwelling, then I'd go along with it being part of the dwelling.  But a sidewalk or a piece of trellis tacked over the roof to connect the roofs should not make a difference.  An insured might win the argument though, if it's clearly a point of "clear space", along with policy definitions and precedents that have occurred in the jurisdiction.  Just my nickels worth, with 3 cents credit.

    0
    swink_d
    Member
    Member
    Posts:96


    --
    09/02/2008 11:26 PM

    I should have taken more pixs

    yes  one  pour all the way across the house.

     

    0
    You are not authorized to post a reply.
    Page 1 of 212 > >>


    These Forums are dedicated to discussion of Claims Adjusting.

    For the benefit of the community and to protect the integrity of the ecosystem, please observe the following posting guidelines: 
    • No Advertising. 
    • No vendor trolling / poaching. If someone posts about a vendor issue, allow the vendor or others to respond. Any post that looks like trolling / poaching will be removed.
    • No Flaming or Trolling.
    • No Profanity, Racism, or Prejudice.
    • Terms of Use Apply

      Site Moderators have the final word on approving / removing a thread or post or comment.