Tags - Popular | FAQ  

PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 10/25/2016 10:15 PM by  HuskerCat
Fire in CA
 129 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 7 of 7 << < 34567
Author Messages
Tom Toll
Moderator & Life Member
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts:1865


--
11/25/2007 9:42 AM

Question of the day:  If a helicopter drops his bucket in your swimming pool several times to help quench a fire near your house and accidently bumps the pool and damages it, is the loss of pool water and damage to the pool, (even though your home did not burn), covered?  Bob Harvey, let someone else answer this, as I know you know the answer.

Please do not answer this with yes or no. Give us the reason why it is, or it is not, from policy coverage.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
0
jlombardo
Member
Member
Posts:145


--
11/25/2007 10:49 AM
Tom,
Is this a test???

What Policy Form? Date of Form...ISO?????

Come on Tom...give out the tools needed to give you an educated answer.........

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


--
11/25/2007 12:09 PM

HO-3, current ISO edition. Sorry Joe, too early in the morning.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
0
RandyC
Member
Member
Posts:197


--
11/25/2007 4:28 PM

Okay, "We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A & B." If it is inground pool, other structure, it is covered property unless the loss is "Excluded under Section 1- Exclusions", "involves collapse", or is "caused by" one of those listed under "We do not insure..." dropped bucket is not expressly listed and we'll look at "Exclusions" later. So far it is covered.

If it was an above ground pool Coverage C "We insure for direct physical loss to the property described in Property C caused by any of the following perils:  5. Aircraft   10. Falling object.   Looks like a falling object from an aircraft. Covered if not excluded. If the bucket was under full control, it would have been accidental damage by aircraft. If the bucket was out of control, it would have been falling object. One or the other or both!

Now looking in Section 1- Exclusions: A "We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following.

....9. Government Action..."seizure of property...by order of any governmental or public authority." (water from pool was seized)

"This exclusion does not apply to such acts ordered by any governmental or public authority that are taken at the time of a fire to prevent its spread, if the loss caused by fire would be covered under this policy."

The above language does not appear in the older ISO forms, but the old (91) and newer(03) forms contain exclusions for "Acts or decisions, including the failure to act or decide, of any person, group, organization or governmental body.

As always the Carrier decides what the Carrier says the policy says, but  this adjuster would recommend the bucket damage  be covered.

Randy Cox

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


--
11/25/2007 5:57 PM

Anybody disagree with the below analysis?

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
0
SSADJUSTER-25
Guest
Guest
Posts:37


--
11/25/2007 6:10 PM



Section I- LOSSES INSURED

COVERAGE A- DWELLING

We insure for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, except as provided in SECTION I-LOSSES NOT INSURED.

COVERAGE B –PERSONAL PROPERTY

We insure for accidental direct physical loss to property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, except as provided in SECTION I- LOSSES NOT INUSRED:

1. Fire or lightning

10. Falling objects. This peril does not include loss to property contained in a building unless the roof or an exterior wall of the building is first damaged by a falling object. Damage to the falling object itself is not included.

SECTION I – LOSSES NOT INSURED

1. We do not insure for any loss to the property described in Coverage A which consists of, or is directly and immediately caused by, one r more of the perils listed in items A. through n. below, regardless of whether the loss occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these:

3. We do not insure under any coverage for any loss consisting of one or more of the items below. Further, we do not insure for loss described in paragraphs 1. and 2. Immediately above regardless of whether one or more of the following: (a) directly or indirectly cause, contribute to or aggravate the loss; or (b) occur before, at the same time, or after the loss or any other cause of the loss:

a. conduct, act, failure to act, or decision of any person, group, organization or govern-
mental body whether intentional, wrongful, negligent, or without fault;


Etc…….

But the last paragraph in this section does state:

However, we do insure for any resulting loss from items a., b. and c. unless the resulting loss is itself a Loss Not Insured by this section.

So, I would say you would pay for the loss but then again depends on how the company interpreted the policy. Reason I would pay for is due to fire is a covered peril in the H0-3 Policy and ISO Form nothing prohibits paying the loss that I have found.

Another thought this is California and they have the Fair Claims Settlement Regulations this is the one for fire:

Section 2695.9. Additional Standards Applicable to Fire and Extended Coverage Type Policies with Replacement Cost Coverage

(a) When a fire and extended coverage insurance policy provides for the adjustment and settlement of first party losses based on replacement cost, the following standards apply:

(1) When a loss requires repair or replacement of an item or part, any consequential physical damage incurred in making the repair or replacement not otherwise excluded by the policy shall be included in the loss. The insured shall not have to pay for depreciation nor any other cost except for the applicable deductible.

(2) When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the damaged area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 790.10, 12921 and 12926 of the California Insurance Code and Sections 11342.2 and 11152 of the California Government Code. Reference: Sections 790.03(h)(3), (5) and (7) of the California Insurance Code.


Tom this is how I see it...

0
pauljnolan
Guest
Guest
Posts:1


--
10/25/2016 9:49 PM

Hello Bob.

I'm very new to estimating and am working with someone that is training me, however a fire job is new to both of us. I was Googling to find help on which codes to use or to look for a sample fire estimate and came across your response on CatAdjuster.org (to which I already had joined a few weeks back). 

Would you consider sending me one of the old estimates that you created to give me an idea of what line items you used for a house damaged by fire and smoke? 

If this is out of protocol, please forgive me. I'm learning the ropes in this industry.

Thanks for your time! 

 

Paul

0
HuskerCat
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:762


--
10/25/2016 10:13 PM

Cudo's on researching the archived forums...but golly Miss Molly, this one dates back to 2007!  Bob might still be stalking this site, and be able to help you out.  He was always a very good resource, as were several old f*rts that contributed.  Looks like those days have passed by, what with the absence of yearly multiple CAT deployments, let alone the non-Cat issues that folks had questions about.

Always threw my 2 cents in when I thought it mattered.  Just trying to hold on to my sense these days!  

 

0
HuskerCat
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:762


--
10/25/2016 10:13 PM

Cudo's on researching the archived forums...but golly Miss Molly, this one dates back to 2007!  Bob might still be stalking this site, and be able to help you out.  He was always a very good resource, as were several old f*rts that contributed.  Looks like those days have passed by, what with the absence of yearly multiple CAT deployments, let alone the non-Cat issues that folks had questions about.

Always threw my 2 cents in when I thought it mattered.  Just trying to hold on to my sense these days!  

 

0
HuskerCat
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:762


--
10/25/2016 10:15 PM
See what I mean?  Clicked on it 2x!
0
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 7 of 7 << < 34567


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.