Forums

This sword has two edges. What is the RC of the dwelling ? say 300.000x80% 240,000 K required

What is the RC of the pool and all the apron 100,000                      400,000 x80% 320.000 required

Insurance carried     240,000    240 over 320 is 25% non compliance x the loss

Loss to pool is $20,000. x non compliance is 25% net is $15,000

Limit on 10% is 24,000K  so pay 100% of loss under 24 k is 20K, except for freezing then none. Just because the apron touches the house, I will bet it does not have grade beam and is a 4-5 inch slab like a poured patio.

BUT it will always be a pool , UNLESS it is under the roof line of the dwelling with walls.

I have paid claims both ways. I think the determining factor is if there are other things thay make it part of the building, for instance a pool cage or a wall that is attached to the house and surrounds the pool.

Fences are typically attached to the house on 2 sides but we always consider them apst.

PLRB says:

Whether an in-ground swimming pool is considered attached to the dwelling or separated from the dwelling by clear space depends on the individual facts and jurisdiction. Obviously, if the pool is architecturally designed to form a portion of the dwelling, i.e., covered year-round enclosure - there would be no problem with deciding that Coverage A applied. However, it is the more common swimming pool setups which cause the dilemma, such as pools connected by utility lines, fences, or patios.
Case law, mostly zoning-related, has ruled that a swimming pool is a structure. Greenberg v. Koslov, 475 S.W.2d 434 (Mo. App. 1971) (pool was in-ground, with plastic bubble, screened board fence, and floodlights); Scott v. Board of Appeal, 248 N.E.2d 281, (Mass. 1969) (pool in-ground); Corter v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 361 N.Y.S.2d 444 (App. Div. 1974) (in-ground pool); Bloomfield v. Parizot, 211 A.2d 230 (N.J. 1969) (above-ground pool with deck around perimeter).

Additionally, in Bennett v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 181 N.E.2d 557 (Mass. 1962), an insurance case, a swimming pool was considered a "structure." There the court held that a below-the-ground pool was neither an addition to the clubhouse building nor a new building under a fire and extended coverage policy, but it was indeed a structure. In discussing the idea that a pool was not an addition, Bennett noted that a concrete terrace between the pool and the clubhouse was a "tenuous link." And Barrett Plaza v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 411 S.W.2d 265 (Mo. App. 1967), in deciding that a sign was not attached to a building, put emphasis on the electrical connection, but did not rely on the fact that there was a concrete parking lot between the sign and the building. It might be argued that based on such court comments or lack of comments, a patio or other concrete connection is not significant in determining whether a building or structure is attached to another building or structure.