Tags - Popular | FAQ  

PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 01/20/2010 7:03 PM by  Linda
The Big Soaker Hurricane
 55 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 3 << < 123
Author Messages
Medulus
Moderator
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:786


--
08/13/2009 6:49 PM
Ray,

It may be that in the past there had to be a CP 10 10 or a CP 10 20 on the policy before adding a CP 10 30, or it may be true in Texas (but if so, my company issues some non-compliant policies), but it is not currently the case. We issue lots of policies and the vast majority have only the CP 10 30 attached as a Causes of Loss form. To the best of my knowledge, that is standard practice now.

If there were more than one attached, I believe the CP 10 30 would still function as an endorsement that expanded coverage to "open perils" (formerly known as "all risks") so as to effectively render the CP 10 10 or CP 10 20 void.
Steve Ebner CPCU AIC AMIM

"With great power comes great responsibility." (Stanley Martin Lieber, Amazing Fantasy # 15 August 1962)
0
RJortberg
Member
Member
Posts:147


--
08/13/2009 7:22 PM

Ray:

Regarding CP 10 30:

4.C.1.C - Limitations state... The following limitations apply to all policy forms and endorsements, unless otherwise stated: We will not pay for loss ...for / to ...the interior of any building or structure, or to personal property in the building structure caused by or resulting from rain, snow, sleet, or ice unless - I'm paraphrasing 1) - hostile opening or 2) ice dam. So that means that water is excluded by these limitations, and that is the key to the short circuit of the analysis.

But there is also a "Manuscript Property Enhancement Endorsement" which, among other things, provides for elimination of Exclusion 1.g.(3) of form CP 10 30 (“Water that backs up or overflows from a sewer, drain or sump.”). This exclusion states that a water back up is not a covered cause of loss, but since this exclusion is over-ridden (as "stated") in the manuscript endorsement, it seems to me that the Limitations you are referencing are over-ridden.

Rich J.

0
dcmarlin
Member
Member
Posts:110


--
08/14/2009 3:37 AM
"but since this exclusion is over-ridden (as "stated") in the manuscript endorsement, it seems to me that the Limitations you are referencing are over-ridden."

Rich, the limitations are still applicable unless there is something in the enhancement to the contrary.
Gimme a bottle of anything and a glazed donut ... to go! (DLR)
0
Medulus
Moderator
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:786


--
08/14/2009 9:38 AM
We're going to, for the purpose of the claim committe we are going to hold on this claim, assume that you have all the information you need and there is not some lurking exception in the property enhancement endorsement.

Obviously, I did not get my answer posted last night. I'll see if I can do it this morning between handling other urgent matters.
Steve Ebner CPCU AIC AMIM

"With great power comes great responsibility." (Stanley Martin Lieber, Amazing Fantasy # 15 August 1962)
0
RJortberg
Member
Member
Posts:147


--
08/14/2009 10:31 AM

DC and Ray-     I see... the key question for me is if the Enhancement / Manuscript Endorsement trumps the Limitations as well as the Exclusion or just the Exclusion.   I don't know why it would not trump both the Limitations and Exclusions if it is intended to provide additional coverage.

Steve:  I gues that means we can get back to work :)

0
Medulus
Moderator
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:786


--
08/14/2009 2:59 PM

So…..what items are covered and why? How much would you pay on this claim under the association policy?

 

Let me introduce my thinking on the solution to this coverage question by quoting Robert Frost:

 

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I --
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference

 

At several points during the analysis of coverage on this claim we have the opportunity to take either of two roads in this grey wood.

 

So….here’s my answer:

 

The AICPCU materials suggest that we follow a methodology called D.I.C.E.  in determining coverage.  D.I.C.E. stands for Declarations, Insuring Agreement, Conditions, Exclusions.  So I start with the Declarations.  They tell me I have coverage for building and contents, but none for business interruption, loss of rents, extra expense, or any other time element loss.  There also is no liability coverage.  This tells me that even if my insured somehow owed the motel bill of the unit owner there is no coverage.  The motel bill is out.  The declarations page further tells me the deductible is $5,000 and that the loss is within the policy period.  As far as the limits, if I suspected the limit was breached by the damage on the first floor, I would want to check the file for the first floor losses.  However, it is unlikely that the limit has been breached.  If so, there is a serious co-insurance issue.

 

On to the insuring agreement found in the CP 00 17 form.  It says:

 

A. Coverage

We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.

 

So we need to have direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property.  Under the Florida condo law and the principals of insurable interest, we can throw out the items that are not covered property, namely the paint, base moldings, and the hardwood floor.  The lauan is the first place where two roads diverge in this grey woods.  Is it an underlayment?  Is it a subfloor?  Since it could be considered either, I choose to give the insured the broadest coverage possible and I include it as covered property. 

 

Additionally, it has to be caused by any Covered Cause of Loss.  This, of course, requires you to move on to the Causes of Loss Form CP 10 30 which states:

 

A. Covered Causes Of Loss

When Special is shown in the Declarations, Covered Causes of Loss means Risks Of Direct

Physical Loss unless the loss is:

 

1. Excluded in Section B., Exclusions; or

2. Limited in Section C., Limitations; that follow.

 

So, covered causes of loss means risks of direct loss unless specifically excluded or limited.  Any risk of direct physical loss that is not excluded or limited is covered.  I will hold off on  consideration of exclusions and limitations for consideration until after we look at the conditions. 

 

There are three places where you find conditions:  The IL 00 17, The CP 0090, and the CP 00 17.  The conditions of the IL 00 17 are very general policy conditions and don’t concern us with regard to this claim.  The CP 00 90 deal more specifically with property insurance, but still has nothing in it that concerns this claim. 

 

One of the conditions of the CP 00 17 could affect this claim.  It is:

 

3. Duties In The Event Of Loss Or Damage

 

  1. You must see that the following are done in the event of loss or damage to Covered Property:

 

(2) Give us prompt notice of the loss or damage. Include a description of the property involved.

 

(3) As soon as possible, give us a description of how, when and where the loss or damage  occurred.

 

(4) Take all reasonable steps to protect the Covered Property from further damage, and keep a record of your expenses necessary to protect the Covered Property, for consideration in the settlement of the claim. This will not increase the Limit of Insurance. However, we will not pay for any subsequent loss or damage resulting from a cause of loss that is not a Covered Cause of Loss. Also, if feasible, set the damaged property aside and in the best possible order for examination.

 

(6) As often as may be reasonably required, permit us to inspect the property proving the loss or damage and examine your books and records.

 

Also permit us to take samples of damaged and undamaged property for inspection, testing and analysis, and permit us to make copies from your books and records.

 

The Insured’s Duties after a loss may have been breached, in other words, by repairing the roof before we had an opportunity to inspect it.  However, this is offset by the duty of the insured to take reasonable steps to prevent further damage.  The roof repairs having been completed, it is now impossible to determine with absolute certainty how water got through the roof.  Hiring an engineer will not help because the repairs have altered the roof from it’s condition at the time of loss.  But, then again, would any of us want to them not to fix the roof yet?  We would have liked to know about this immediately, but at this point we simply have to play the hand we’re dealt.  Hopefully, we can obtain a photo pre-repair, or talk to someone who is relatively unbiased who saw the loss area prior to the repairs.  In the real world, on a minor roof repair, we are likely to have to take the insured at their word.  They told us that water got under the roof membrane and, therefore, they had to repair it.  Here again, two roads diverge in this grey woods.  I could deny this claim because the area where the loss began has been altered to the point that I cannot fully determine how the loss occurred, thereby prejudicing me.  I cannot be fully certain, due to the actions of the insured, whether there was a hole or split in the roof caused by age or neglect or whether the hurricane winds tore up a small area of roof or blew a sharp object across it or whether the roof as poorly constructed in this particular around the drain.  But I choose the path that says this is not enough to deny the claim because the burden of proof under a CP 10 30 form is on the carrier rather than the insured. 

 

So, on to the exclusions and limitations.  These are the ones that might apply:

 

B. Exclusions

1. We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following.

Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.

 

g. Water

 

(1) Flood, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow of any body of water, or their spray, all whether driven by wind or not;

 

(Commentary:  This does not describe this loss at all.  Water on the roof cannot be construed as surface water.  There is a flood endorsement on this policy, but that is a red herring.  The fifth floor damage is not the result of flood.)

 

(3) Water that backs up or overflows from a sewer, drain or sump; or

 

(Commentary:  This exclusion is deleted by the Property Enhancement Endorsement.  Since Endorsements are specifically designed to change some part of the policy – to add or subtract some coverage or change some condition – the endorsement always trumps the main policy form. So back up or overflow from a sewer or drain is not excluded.)

 

(4) Water under the ground surface pressing on, or flowing or seeping through:

(a) Foundations, walls, floors or paved surfaces;

(b) Basements, whether paved or not; or

(c) Doors, windows or other openings.

 

(Commentary:  The seepage exclusion clearly does not apply to water entering through a roof.  It refers to water under the surface of the ground.)

 

h. "Fungus", Wet Rot, Dry Rot And Bacteria Presence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria.

But if "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria results in a "specified cause of loss", we will pay for the loss or damage caused by that "specified cause of loss". This exclusion does not apply:

 

1. When "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria results from fire or lightning; or

2. To the extent that coverage is provided in the Additional Coverage – Limited Coverage For "Fungus", Wet Rot, Dry Rot And Bacteria with respect to loss or damage by a cause of loss other than fire or lightning.

 

Exclusions B.1.a. through B.1.h. apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.

 

(Commentary:  Mold, which is included in the term “fungus”, is excluded with a couple exceptions.  We’ll deal with the exceptions a little later.  On to more exclusions….)

 

2. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following:

 

f. Continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water, or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture or vapor, that occurs over a period of 14 days or more.

 

(Commentary:  presumably this did not occur over a period in excess of 14 days and cannot then be considered continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water.  More exclusions…)

 

3. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following, 3.a. through 3.c. But if an excluded cause of loss that is listed in 3.a. through 3.c. results in a

Covered Cause of Loss, we will pay for the loss or damage caused by that Covered Cause of Loss.

 

a. Weather conditions. But this exclusion only applies if weather conditions contribute in any way with a cause or event excluded in Paragraph 1. above to produce the loss or damage.

 

(Commentary:  This might have applied, but for the fact that back up or overflow from a sewer or drain is no longer excluded under paragraph one, so this exclusion does not apply.)

 

c. Faulty, inadequate or defective:

 

 (2) Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction;

(3) Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or

(4) Maintenance; of part or all of any property on or off the described premises.

 

(Commentary:  Here is where we wish we had gotten the opportunity to view the roof prior to repairs.  It is quite possible that there was some defective workmanship, wear and tear , or other defect involved in the water entering this building from the roof, but we do not know because the insured made repairs before you saw the loss.  It is now too late to get an engineer’s opinion.  Here again, two roads diverge in this “grey” woods.  I understand that the burden of proof is on the carrier to show the exclusion.  I don’t believe I can rely on this exclusion.  And the exclusion following is from the windstorm exclusion endorsement. )

 

WINDSTORM OR HAIL

We will not pay for loss or damage:

 

  1. Caused directly or indirectly by Windstorm or Hail, regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss or damage; or 2. Caused by rain, snow, sand or dust, whether driven by wind or not, if that loss or damage would not have occurred but for the Windstorm or Hail.

 

But if Windstorm or Hail results in a cause of loss other than rain, snow, sand or dust, and that resulting cause of loss is a Covered Cause of Loss, we will pay for the loss or damage caused by such Covered Cause of Loss. For example, if the Windstorm or Hail damages a heating system and fire results, the loss or damage attributable to the fire is covered subject to any other applicable policy provisions.

 

C. In the Causes of Loss - Special Form, Windstorm or Hail is deleted from the "specified causes of loss".

 

(Commentary:  There is no other evidence of damage due to wind to the building, so should we suppose that the roof was damaged by wind in the small area that has been repaired.  That would be a hard sell.  This occurred during a windstorm and is certainly caused directly or indirectly by the windstorm.  But if there is a resulting cause of loss that is covered such as, in this case, back up or overflow from a sewer or drain, coverage is allowed for that resulting damage.  This is my understanding of concurrent causation.  Namely, if there is a resulting covered cause of loss it does not extend coverage to the uncovered loss that is separately attributable to the excluded cause of loss.  It only allows coverage for loss resulting from the covered cause of loss.

 

Finally, there is the limitation that some of you found to be the nail in the coffin.)

 

 

C. Limitations

The following limitations apply to all policy forms and endorsements, unless otherwise stated.

 

1. We will not pay for loss of or damage to property, as described and limited in this section. In addition, we will not pay for any loss that is a consequence of loss or damage as described and limited in this section.

 

c. The interior of any building or structure, or to personal property in the building or structure, caused by or resulting from rain, snow, sleet, ice, sand or dust, whether driven by wind or not, unless:

 

(1) The building or structure first sustains damage by a Covered Cause of Loss to its roof or walls through which the rain, snow, sleet, ice, sand or dust enters; or

 

(Commentary:  Here is where we encounter yet another fork in the road in our “grey” woods.  In fact this one is a four way intersection and we can diverge at several points.  First, note that there is no “hostile opening” language.  The word “opening” is nowhere to be found.  I believe, if memory serves me right, that an “opening” caused by a covered cause of loss was a requirement in former versions of this form.  However, the CP 10 30 04 02 version only requires that the building sustain damage from a Covered (not excluded) Cause of Loss.  This is not now the case.  Is water getting under the roof membrane damage?  Furthermore, the damage to the interior must be from rain, sleet, ice, sand or dust in order for the limitation to apply.  This was discussed at length in a couple previous posts.  The fork in the road is before us.  My opinion is that when the debris was washed into the drain so that water flowing into the drain would overflow, backing up under the roof membrane, that this created an intervening causation that meant that the cause is no longer rain or windstorm, but back up or overflow of a drain.  Therefore, I’m taking the road that leads to coverage rather than denial on this one.  If you disagree with me on this one, you are in good company.  In fact I think I am truly choosing the road less traveled here.  This is the part my boss and I went round and round on when we encountered a similar situation on one of our claims.  I see this as a claim for damage caused by the backup or overflow of a drain.  If this drain were inside the building and backed up during a rainstorm, we would call it back up.  I think the same is true when the drain is on the roof.  I have actually encountered this sort of situation on cat claims a few times and the carriers have, in each case, decided to cover the losses.  There was usually a $5,000 limit or less on backup though.  This policy has no such limitation.)

 

Now, at this point, I am traipsing down the coverage path I chose in this “grey” woods.  So far I am covering the loss to covered property.  But how about the mold?  It’s time to take a look at the additional coverage for mold.

 

E. Additional Coverage – Limited Coverage For "Fungus", Wet Rot, Dry Rot And Bacteria

1. The coverage described in E.2. and E.6. only applies when the "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria is the result of one or more of the following causes that occurs during the policy period and only if all reasonable means were used to save and preserve the property from further damage at the time of and after that occurrence.

a. A "specified cause of loss" other than fire or lightning; or

b. Flood, if the Flood Coverage Endorsement applies to the affected premises.

 

2. We will pay for loss or damage by "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria. As used in this Limited Coverage, the term loss or damage means:

 

a. Direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property caused by "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria, including the cost of removal of the "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria;

 

b. The cost to tear out and replace any part of the building or other property as needed to gain access to the "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria; and

 

c. The cost of testing performed after removal, repair, replacement or restoration of the damaged property is completed, provided there is a reason to believe that "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria are present.

 

3. The coverage described under E.2. of this Limited Coverage is limited to $15,000. Regardless of the number of claims, this limit is the most we will pay for the total of all loss or damage arising out of all occurrences of "specified causes of loss" (other than fire or lightning) and Flood which take place in a 12-month period (starting with the beginning of the present annual policy period). With respect to a particular occurrence of loss which results in "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria, we will not pay more than a total of $15,000 even if the "fungus", wet or dry rot or bacteria continues to be present or active, or recurs, in a later policy period.

 

G. Definitions

1. "Fungus" means any type or form of fungus, including mold or mildew, and any mycotoxins, spores, scents or by-products produced or released by fungi.

 

2. "Specified Causes of Loss" means the following:

Fire; lightning; explosion; windstorm or hail; smoke; aircraft or vehicles; riot or civil commotion; vandalism; leakage from fire extinguishing equipment; sinkhole collapse; volcanic action; falling objects; weight of snow, ice or sleet; water damage.

 

c. Water damage means accidental discharge or leakage of water or steam as the direct result of the breaking apart or cracking of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or other system or  appliance (other than a sump system including its related equipment and parts), that is located on the described premises and contains water or steam.

 

(Commentary:  Remember that we excluded mold previously except under certain circumstances – namely fire, lightning, and the coverage provided as part of this additional coverage.  The additional coverage allows for a $15,000 limit per 12 month policy term.  The $15,000 includes testing after the protocol is begun.  We ruled out that this is a flood earlier, so that leaves us with “specified causes of loss”.  As seen before in the windstorm exclusion endorsement.  “windstorm or hail” is deleted from the list of “specified causes of loss”, and water damage is defined in such a way that this loss is not attributable to “water damage” as defined.  Therefore, this loss does not fit any of the potentially covered causes of loss for mold.  I would deny both the mold and testing for mold.  Since we don’t cover mold damage in this scenario, why would we pay to find out if it is present?  I believe a partial denial for mold is in order.)

 

So, I have chosen my divergent roads through the woods and here is the destination at which I arrive:

 

Water Remediation and Dry Out:               $2,750 (I might actually owe only a portion)

Drywall Damage:                                    $1,650

Insulation Damage outside wall and Ceiling: $750

Paint:                                                            Not covered property

Remove, Reinstall, Refinish Base Molding:             Not covered property

Hardwood Flooring Replacement:                         Not covered property

Lauan:                                                 $500

Remove and Reset Contents:                            Not covered – relates to flooring repair

Mold Testing                                                   Excluded

Mold Remediation:                                           Excluded

The unit owner's motel bill:                                 No coverage

 

My total covered loss (accepting the full dry out costs)      $5,650

Minus deductible                                                        $5,000

Payable Claim                                                           $650

 And, oh by the way, we also have to figure out if this loss is the part of the same loss or a different one than the first floor losses.  Because, if it is the same loss (and it probably is) and the deductible has been already applied on the first floor losses (and it probably has), then I should be recommending payment of $5,650 rather than $650.

Steve Ebner CPCU AIC AMIM

"With great power comes great responsibility." (Stanley Martin Lieber, Amazing Fantasy # 15 August 1962)
0
Ray Hall
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts:2443


--
08/14/2009 4:29 PM

Steve the only thing I can say that describes your post is " thats why you do what you do and the reason most of us do what we do".

So if I am the insured I will lower my claim several thousand and disreguard adjuster Ray Hall complete deniel letter and accept your offer of $650.00 and this sucker is settled.

0
Medulus
Moderator
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:786


--
08/14/2009 5:10 PM

Ray,

I got lost in my own scenario. I must have missed that side trail along the road.

I didn't deal with the roof repair.

Let me put on my thinking cap once again.

It's likely that the roof had some sort of breach in it. This breach was most likely in the area of the drain. Otherwise it would have leaked during previous rainstorms. It only actually leaked when the rain was more than the roof could handle. And the damage, if the insured and their contractor are to be believed, amounted to water encroaching under the roof membranes. The roof repair was minor and partly to mitigate the damage and partly to open up the wet area under the roof and allow it to dry out. I think I need to pay for the roof as well. So that makes the claim $6,850.00 if the deductible has been previously satisfied or $1,850.00 if it has not.

But you know this one is likely to be the one where people keep coming back and wanting more when you've already given them every benefit of the doubt.  How often have you seen that?

Steve Ebner CPCU AIC AMIM

"With great power comes great responsibility." (Stanley Martin Lieber, Amazing Fantasy # 15 August 1962)
0
dcmarlin
Member
Member
Posts:110


--
08/15/2009 4:02 PM
Steve,

I think it is great that you (and others) tried to find ways to cover the loss. At that four-way intersection, I would have headed down the the other path.
Gimme a bottle of anything and a glazed donut ... to go! (DLR)
0
okclarryd
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:954


--
08/15/2009 8:43 PM
Let's all count our blessings that Steve gave the short answer.
Larry D Hardin
0
RJortberg
Member
Member
Posts:147


--
08/15/2009 11:12 PM

Steve:

Very nice write up. It took a while to digest, but it is very logical, and I agree with your conclusions. I think in the case of litigation, the fact that the drain is exterior would be immaterial.  It is a drain back up, and the poliicy does not speak to the kind or location of the drain back up.

Also, I really like the DICE methodology. One of the problems with this exercise was knowing when to look at the trees and when to look at the forest. It’s easy to get lost in the forms in terms of inter-relationships, etc. I was thinking that it would be nice to have some kind of flow chart to act as a road map. The DICE helps focus and short cut unnecessary analysis (such as really getting the impact of the declarations).

I have a couple of questions:

1) You said this damage was not from surface water. Is that because of an element of causation? By that I mean if the drain was not plugged, the water would not have ponded on the roof. But can’t surface water as we typically think of it (on the ground) come from some on or offsite obstruction that causes water to accumulate (perhaps by a building wall) and be excluded from coverage. Pls. recall the case in Texas where damage from rainwater from an adjoining elevated structure was classified as surface water (i.e., where the rain landed). The only difference I see here is the possible element of causation and also that the water is on the roof, but I’m not sure if that’s what you were thinking.

2) In an earlier post you acknowledged this was not flood damage, but you thought one could lose in trial on this point. Can you expand on that point, and how does that fit w/ your conclusions?

3) Finally – what do you mean when you are talking about Insured’s Duties you say you could deny this claim… but you cannot fully determine how the loss occurred, “thereby prejudicing me”. I understand that the burden of proof is on the insurer since this is not a named perils policy, and I understand why you do not deny the claim outright, but I do not understand the term being “prejudiced” w/ respect to an absence of information on the cause of the drain leak.

Nice job. A very good learning experience.

Rich
 

0
Medulus
Moderator
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:786


--
08/17/2009 9:57 AM

Rich,

I had sort of a busy weekend, so I apologize for not getting back to you on this earlier. You're turning the Socratic method back around on me, huh?

1. It is not surface water because the term "surface water" is typically understood as water that is on the surface of the ground. There may be a court here or there that interprets it otherwise, but that would expand the definition to make the term meaningless. All water lands on a surface. If rain hits a wall and runs down it, it is running down a surface (in the broadest sense), but that would not cause a denial. Surface water landing on a roof is always surface water in the same sense. If fact, water from a sprinkler that lands on the floor lands on a surface (namely, the surface of the floor). The term "surface water" has in the vast majority of cases been interpreted to mean water that has made contact with the ground.

2. I guess my earlier post was not clear. I meant that if you tried to call this a flood, that would not fly in court. It does not fit the definition of "flood", and I think that definition is specific enough to withstand court scrutiny. You could not deny this as a flood if the policy excluded flood, nor could you cover it as flood if the policy had a flood endorsement.

3. Prejudice, as normally used in this context, means that the insured has done something that makes it impossible for you to determine the cause of a loss or the amount of damage caused by the loss. Although the policy has a condition that the claim must be reported as soon as possible, most courts will only uphold that if the insurance carrier has been "prejudiced" by the delay. If, for instance, the claim is reported two years later and three other windstorms have occurred during the interim, it would be impossible for the insurer to sort out damage from Hurricanes Whatsis, Whosis, and Idontknowsis. If they only insured the property during the period that Whatsis occurred, there is no way to know if they owe anything or not. In this case there is at least a slight delay (because there has been time to adjust all the first floor losses) and there has been some element of prejudice in that the cause of loss is obscured by the roof repair. However, there is also a policy condition that requires the insured to mitigate their damages. If they had replaced the entire roof, that would have been suspect, but to make a small repair is only common sense because no insurer wants the damage to continue and become worse. There are dueling conditions here, in a sense. It is my belief that the duty to mitigate is more important than the duty to preserve the evidence. Again, I wish they had taken a picture. But then, most people are not professionals when it comes to filing a claim so the insured is usually held to a lower standard than the inusurer who is assumed to have a superior knowledge of the policy. This is one of the places where a judgement call must be made - one of the diverging roads in the wood - so the decision can go either way. Personally, I err on the side of the insured.

And I meant what I said before, Rich.  I want you on the claim committee when I try to figure out the next one.  You have some good instincts.

Steve Ebner CPCU AIC AMIM

"With great power comes great responsibility." (Stanley Martin Lieber, Amazing Fantasy # 15 August 1962)
0
RJortberg
Member
Member
Posts:147


--
08/17/2009 10:39 AM
Thanks for the clarifications Steve. So one court case does not make case law :)
0
Medulus
Moderator
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:786


--
08/17/2009 3:00 PM
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Nothing is exactly set in stone in the law. Like the file I just dealt with. The trial date was set for last Monday. Everyone showed up, along with everyone from the other 12 trials set for the same courtroom on the same day. The judge sent everyone out and told them to be available by telephone. A week later we still don't know when the trial will start - probably several weeks from now.

To quote Dickens (I think it was his character Mr. Beadle), "The law is a ass."
Steve Ebner CPCU AIC AMIM

"With great power comes great responsibility." (Stanley Martin Lieber, Amazing Fantasy # 15 August 1962)
0
margar1
Member
Member
Posts:98


--
08/31/2009 3:37 PM

I am not qualified to add any intelligent comments or opinions regarding this post. However I do appreciate these types of threads as they are a great learning tool....thanks for the contributions!

Mark S Garland
0
Linda
Life Member
Guest
Guest
Posts:35


--
01/20/2010 7:03 PM

Steve, I realize this is very, very late on this subject but the CP10 65 10 00 Flood Coverage Endorsement defines:

C. Additional Covered Cause of Loss

The following is added to the Covered Causes of Loss:

Flood, meaning a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas due to:

1. The overflow of inland or tidal waters;
2. The unusual or rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source; or
3. Mudslides or mudflows which are caused by flooding in C.2.  above. For the purpose of this Covered Cause Of Loss, a mudslide or mudflow involves a river of liquid and flowing mud on the surface of normally dry land areas as when earth is carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the current.

All flooding in a continuous or protracted event will constitute a single flood.

0
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 3 << < 123


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.