| Author |
Message |
R.D. Hood (Dave)
| | Posted on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 12:04 am: | |
OK, I'll give this one a go. This writer ran into the situation in Michigan in 2001. (And the insured tore down the school building in which the mold was discovered and identified.)
The issue will surely arise "Up North" in the next few months. (The PA's are rubbing their hands to keep warm?) That's doubtful.
As always the policy governs, and without it you are lost. Some policies have the specific language quoted in the post and others do not. Those without the specific language will surely be broached in some fashion, and those that do have it will be tested in other fashions, such as "hidden damages".
An "Ice Dam Condition" is not a covered peril, but the resultant interior structual water damage is covered under most all risk policies. HO3- HO-B -HO-7 CP-1030.
The losses may escalate from a simple 2/3/5K loss to 20-30+K losses, IF there is an identifiable mold present or the insured has some physical complaints, which may be related to Mycotoxins from exposed or hidden mold.
There are steps that can be taken to mitigate damages, for which the insured has the responsibility.
With respect to how to CYA on these: First, try and elicit a written directive from the company, or an interoffice memo from a superior. In any claim, document the file like you never have before, every conversation, statement, complaint, question etc.
Second: Inquire of the adjusters that are presently on assignment, or recently finished one, whom are doing these water damage claims, which also have concurrent or ensuing losses that are mold related.
The information you need will consist of the following:
1) When do you need an IAQ Test and what does it cost?
2) When do you need a MRP Protocol written, and the cost?
3) What is the average cost of remediation per SF?
4) What is the turnaround time for the IAQ, MRP< and remediation?
5) Will there be an ALE claim in all cases?
6) Will they allow stacking of claims, to compensate for additional ALE?
This field requires a great deal of investigation, hours of study and a very comprehensive understanding of the ramifications of mold in the building.
The basic precept is simple: "Mold follows Water"
Like crossing the RR Tracks, STOP, LOOK, LISTEN |
Jim Flynt (Jimflynt)
| | Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2001 - 8:09 pm: | |
Here is an interesting coverage question which was emailed by a CADO reader this afternoon. I am posting it here for CADO readers' responses. I will share my own thoughts later
***************************************************************Greetings Jim,
Good information, as usual. I wonder if I could prevail on you to write an addendum, to your post, addressing condensation and mold. Both are common occurrences with snow/ice claims.
With the vents being snowed shut and additional moisture introduced via ice damming, the condensation and mold growth, are consequential to the snow/ice occurrence.
The company I usually work for writes its own policy, which contains the "concurrent with, or contributing in any sequence" exclusionary language. In the past, we were instructed to deny all effects of condensation and mold. Last year, I was comfortable with that, now I'm a little nervous about it. I also know that some policies do not contain this exclusionary language.
I suspect some companies, regardless of proximate cause and reasonable expectation, will insist on denying condensation and mold. They may be correct in doing so; however, If they are wrong, I don't want to find out as a defendant in a bad faith action.
What would you do when mold is encountered under these circumstances? How would you document the file for your protection, without alienating the company?
Best Regards,
E.E.
************************************* |
|
