| Author |
 Topic  |
|
leoncrow
USA
16 Posts |
 Posted - 03/18/2004 : 08:10:27
|
| copper water pipes developing soft spots and then leaking. problem founnd in two towns 100 miles apart. what is covered what is not.state is south dakota, some say it is chemicals in water, others say it is because electricity is grounded to the pipes. policy is standard state farm homeowners. help deeply appreciated |
|
|
gloverb
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2004 : 08:47:09
|
Worked 1 like this 2 years ago for SF under an HOB. Homeowner is responsible for the plumbing repairs. Policy covered water damages caused by the leak & access to do the plumbing repairs.
Be sure & check your policy. I do not think the HOB's are written any longer. |
 |
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2004 : 09:27:38
|
Either read the applicable policy and post or post the dec page details here.
Is the policy all risk or named peril? |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2004 : 14:42:04
|
(1) Hard copper with solder joint SHOULD NEVER TO BE PLACED in soil, because; chemical reaction & electrolysis. It may take years but it is certain.
Neither is a "risk of loss". The wet soil, is not insured. No payment.
(2)Inside a wall, Yes for the resulting loss; but not the cause . A "risk if loss, all risk" or accidental plumbing discharge coverage must be in place for #2 to apply.
a named peril....if its sudden and accidental. |
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2004 : 18:20:16
|
Check the type of copper used:
Type "M" (Red Label) only for low pressure heating.
Type "L" (Blue Label) up to 125# PSI for water supply systems. (Never direct bury as stated)
Type "K" (Green Label) soft copper, thicker wall, up to 125 # PSI, continuous length’s to 100'(can be buried).
Type DWV, ONLY used for drainage, waste & vent (Yellow Label)
Oft time the wrong materials are used. The claim may also be subject to inherent vice, latent defect, etc.
|
|
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2004 : 23:24:06
|
Trader, Would you please explain sudden and accidental? Must all losses be sudden and accidental to be covered? The HO-3 policy defines an occurrence as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposures to substantially the same general harmful conditions, which results during the policy period, in: bodily injury or property damage".
I cannot find anything in the HO-3 policy that says a loss to "COVERAGE A" and "COVERAGE B" must be sudden and accidental.
Under "COVERAGE C" Named perils # 13 & 15 mention sudden and accidental damage. Named peril # 12 mentions accidental damage.
One definition of sudden is:
1 a : happening or coming unexpectedly b : changing angle or character all at once
2 : marked by or manifesting abruptness or haste
3 : made or brought about in a short time : PROMPT
When you say sudden, do you mean unexpected or do you mean abruptly? If unexpected, from who's standpoint? If abruptly, how long of a time period? 1800 years ago the earth cooled abruptly. Over a ten year span.
When you say accidental, do you mean from the insured's point of view, the mortgage company's, or the adjuster's? If an insured burns down his house, it was intentional from the insured's standpoint, it was unintended from the mortgage company's. |
Larry Wright |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2004 : 11:47:48
|
Larry: This definition is in section II Liability section, its in all General Liability coverage. This definition does not apply in the property section of the Homeowners. Your first paragraph limits it to BI/PD.
I believe before any reader will ever understand the " whole intent" of the HO 3 is to under stand the NY State 165 line fire policy, and the entire chapter of "risk of loss" in a good Inland Marine text book. This coverage in not hard to understand, if you break it down to about 16-18 peril (that are named) in the C Coverage. 99% of losses will fall in these named perils and the remaining 1% will be answered by the many things covered AS "risk of loss" which I have posted many times. Ask this question also. Is any insurnace coverage broader than the Automobile "Comprehensive" coverage. The answer is no or not really. Why don't auto adjusters have these coverage questions. Answer "risk of loss was explained in school for auto adjusters, and every exclusion was analyzed and discussed for hours in class.Additionally all "the maintenance issues" on auto claims are explained by the exclusions. Auto physical damage is a property policy that has not changed , since
long before my time. Please read the auto policy and it will help all readers with the H0 3.
And please forgive the instructor, who may have said,"if its not excluded; its covered". The following example may help. A flash flood flooded an underpass. The first auto to stall out did not realize the water depth and was totaled out after being submerged. The Greyhound bus also had the same fate, but the driver believed his vehicle was higher off the ground. The third driver saw the fate of the other two vehicles and just thought his Honda Civic could swim. Pay the first two as neither could determine the depth of the water. Turn down the Civic driver as he could see the top of the submerged auto and water up to the bus windows. Use a Homeowners C example (all risk on both coverages) A couple turns over in a boat in frigid water. They both scamble to shore. When she stops shaking she discovers her new engagment ring slipped off her finger and was lost in the swift stream.
A covered loss- Pay.
Same couple in same boat. She gets angry and throws her ring at him. Bad aim and the ring is lost. Not covered. Not a risk of loss. |
Edited by - trader on 03/21/2004 15:15:52 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2004 : 17:41:59
|
I would argue that if the young woman's intent was to throw the ring at her fiance in anger, and her intent further was not to throw the ring into the water, that it too is a covered loss.
A long time ago, I used an example here on CADO wherein if an insured goes into the attic of his home, and discovers a snake or skunk, and then retrieves his trusty shotgun or rifle with the intent to kill same, then resulting or ancillary damages to the roof or attic is not excluded, as there was no intent on the part of the homeowner to damage his home.
|
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2004 : 18:45:24
|
| Several years ago a ground employee of a power company was assigned thru seniority to supervise, for a day, a line crew. Friction was the result. A fight ensued. The temporary supervisor led with a left and broke the lineman's jaw. After a fight an Arkansas court ruled that while the fight was intentional the broken jaw wasn't. |
|
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2004 : 19:50:15
|
| If there is a loss, there was a risk of loss. It may have been a .0000001% or a 99.99999999999% or 100% risk. Whether or not it is covered depends on the policy and its provisions, conditions and exclusions. The policy doesn't state which risks will be paid for, so it is all risks. The policies used to say all-risk but they changed that because it was misleading to those who wouldn't read their policies and would later claim they didn't realize there were exclusions which applied. Dropping the word "all" from the insuring agreement plugged that gap.A 100% risk of loss is covered unless it is excluded. Bind coverage on your house when a tornado is 1/2 mile away and the claim will get paid. |
Larry Wright |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2004 : 00:05:36
|
| Larry, don't you think that's cutting it a little close? A tornado a half mile away? |
|
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2004 : 08:10:54
|
| JimF, You are probably right, to continue in the same vein, lets change that to .5555555555 miles------Some of us are hopeless procrastinators. The point is, i was just trying to make a point. |
Larry Wright |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2004 : 08:40:36
|
I just couldn't resist Larry, being a procrastinator myself.
Your point was well made however. |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2004 : 09:40:53
|
OK Flood adjusters. Several Questions...
1. Is a building by the flood policy definition allowed to have a brick fireplace?
2. Is a building allowed to have a brick fireplace if it is an elevated building by defination.
3. If the answer to # 2 is NO COVERAGE for the fireplace, would it change to Yes for coverage if
fire place heat was metal ducted into other rooms for heat? Would this give coverage to the fireplace?
NFIP and National Flood Services Inc. has taken the fireplace out of this claim as the foundation of the fireplace is below the lowest elevated floor; therefore, the complete chimney and fire box is excluded.
Using this logic it would seem logical to exclude all the piles(foundation members) on the front of the house as they hold up the living room and kitchen, and so forth, and so forth. |
Edited by - trader on 03/22/2004 12:19:48 |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2004 : 09:57:30
|
| Jim: I agree the bullet damage would be covered. No intention to damage. Still no coverage for the ring, as she told me in her statement "his mouth was closed and he was rowing with both hands" (could not catch to avoid loss). |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2004 : 10:41:14
|
Trader, clearly she intended the "act" but the question would revolve around whether she intended the consequences.
Admittedly, this is a gray area claim, and I can appreciate the position of those who argue for or against coverage.
Did you ask her what she intended and whether she intended to throw the ring into the water?
Finally, how valuable was the ring, how deep is the water, and where is the lake? (Might be some scuba adjusters around here looking for something to do!) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
coverage
Forum Locked
