Post Number: 103
|Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2002 - 9:15 am: |
In some states this would be covered.The thinking is that the 30"water main serves the dwelling.Even though it is owned by the mun. You also need to determine the definition of flood or surface water. Some states would say yes and some no. In Alabama a few years back, a backhoe hit a street main. Court decided that main served the residence and it was covered. Other case law said that this was not flood or surface water but, divereted or channeled water. Call your lawyer buddy on this one and get a state specific coverage question. Yes, the court said there was a difference between flood, surface and divereted channeled water. I guessing but, every state has got to be different on this one. Stay away from the FC & S Bulletins as they are not state specific.
|Kile Anderson (Kileanderson)
Post Number: 138
|Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2002 - 1:26 am: |
Sorry, that was the answer to Jim's post from 2 years ago. I forgot the forum is upside down now.
|Kile Anderson (Kileanderson)
Post Number: 137
|Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2002 - 1:24 am: |
I will assume that this is a municipal water line and not part of the household plumbing system since I know of few private homes serviced by 30" waterlines. What actually knocked the house off the foundation? Was it a torrent of water that rushed down the street and pushed it off? Was it a sinkhole or a landslide? Did the water freeze and expand, pushing the house off? Unless it can somehow be argued that the water pipe is part of the house's plumbing system, I don't see how there could be any coverage for the dwelling. Coverage C is only available for a loss insured, so there would be no ALE. But, there is a temporary living expense allowance of up to $2000 if a civil authority prohibits your use of the residence premises because of earthquake, landslide or volcanic explosion. What caused the house to be knocked off it's foundation? Was it a landslide? Was it a sinkhole? It seems landslide is covered but sinkhole isn't. In my very limited opinion I think the only coverage you may be able to extend would be the Temp. Living Expense Allowance under additional coverages. Either way, the city of College Park, Maryland is ultimately liable. Then again, I could be wrong.
|Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2000 - 9:29 pm: |
To find a link to FC&S go to www.nuco.com This is the homepage for National Underwriter and has various links to other sites including the afore mentioned.
|Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2000 - 8:50 am: |
Just a note, FC&S are available on disk
|Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2000 - 10:53 pm: |
Has anyone considered the FC&S bulletins, there may be precedence set there.
The HO-3 is an all risk policy, which means that it covers loss by any peril to the dwelling except what is specifically excluded. The policy contains definitions of the "residence premisis", "a.the one family dwelling or other structures and grounds; or
b. That part of any other building"
If the loss occurred on the "residence premisis" and the dwelling was not vacant there would be coverage for the loss, as the policy excludes accidental discharge or overflow which occurs off the "residence premisis". It could be argued also that the land would be excluded from coverage, however within the perimeter walls this may be considered an element of the foundation and in order for the repairs to be effected the land may be replaced under the foundation, and excluded outside the perimeter of the foundation.
On the ALE Issue, there would be coverage to our insured as they sustained a direct physical loss, for a peril insured against, the other homeowners would be excluded since thier loss was off premisis. One exception is that is the civil authorities were to prohibit them from returning to their "residence premisis" there may be coverage....for 2 weeks
THIS ALL HINGES ON THE PERSON WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT OR DENY THE LOSS, AS AN INDEPENDENT ADJUSTOR, I HAVE ALWAYS MADE IT MY OBJECTIVE TO FIND COVERAGE, ON A CONTROVERTED ISSUE SUCH AS THIS, I WOULD SEEK THE DIRECTION OF MY FILE EXAMINER, AND THORUGHLY DOCUMENT MY ASSSIGNMENT PRIOR TO RELATING ANY ACCEPTANCE OR DENIAL OF THIS LOSS TO THE INSURED. THIS DECISION WOULD COME DIRECTLY FROM THE COMPANY AS AN INDEPENDENT ADJUSTOR USUALLY DOES NOT (NOR SHOULD THEY) ACCEPT OR DENY ANY LOSS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY GIVEN THE DIRECTION TO DO SO.
LASTLY THE FILE EXAMINER MAY NOT HAVE AS MUCH EXPERIENCE AS YOU, AND MAY RUSH TO A JUDGEMENT, IF YOU FEEL THAT AN INCORRECT DECISION HAS BEEN MADE THEN APPEAL TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY IN THE COMPANY, AND DOCUMENT YOUR FILE ACCORDINGLY. REMEMBER MOST OF OUR E&O CARRIERS HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL DEDUCTIBLE, WHICH COULD CUT INTO YOUR HARD EARNED NESTEGG, AND MOST OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED WILL DEVELOP AMNESIA WHEN THE TIME COMES TO LAY BLAME.
|Posted on Monday, January 31, 2000 - 9:22 pm: |
We have a pipe that is not inside the house. We don't know where the pipe is. For the sake of this discussion I will assume that this pipe must be located somewhere off-premises, but not on someone else's property. This would generally make the pipe a "city" pipe.
A pipe this large, that is not protected by inside walls of a heated home, would generally have to be sufficiently insulated so that it would not freeze due to freezing temperatures. This pipe was located in a city that sees very cold and freezing weather, during winters, on a regular basis. Therefore, planning, design specifications, workmanship, grading compaction or maintenance might be an issue here. Any of these items, performed inadequately or defectively, could be a reason the pipe would be subject to freezing and subsequent rupture. Damage due to these reasons is not covered.
However, ensuing loss by a sudden and accidental discharge of water would be covered.
I do not think that earth movement is an issue here as Jim stated that the house was knocked off its foundation. It seems that the foundation is still intact in it's original location.
Regarding ALE. Let's say that this pipe (30" is a big one to be spewing water) makes the 5 neighboring properties uninhabitable and the civil authorities prohibit the owners from use of their residence premises. ALE would be applicable because ALE is applicable if direct damage to a neighboring premises is caused by a covered loss.
In this situation, the loss to our insured's residence is covered, therefore, ALE to the 5 neighboring properties would be covered under their own policies (assuming they have HO3 policies). BUT they are only covered for ALE for up to 2 weeks during which use is prohibited.
|Posted on Monday, January 31, 2000 - 7:28 pm: |
Cecilia, in this particular instance, the 30" water line WAS NOT IN THE RESIDENCE (BTW, I am not saying EXACTLY WHERE it was, because location could change the coverage issues). Show us how us how the pipe location might extend or deny coverage.
Obviously, the reason the other 5 property owners were forced to evacuate would be important. Why not try to outline why they might or might not be covered for ALE (Coverage D).
You can also make other assumptions about the policy form or forms if you would like, although I would like everyone to touch on coverages if the home off the foundation was covered under an HO-3.
There are inherently some factors we do not know here, but I want everyone to use whatever logic they will. It is also fair to "reach" in your answers as long as you give us your logic and outline the assumptions which you are using in answering.
There are several different answers depending on the assumptions made. I'll outline several possibilities after everyone has had a crack at answering.
|Posted on Monday, January 31, 2000 - 7:06 pm: |
Jim, was the pipe inside the house? If so, was the house vacant?
If the house was NOT vacant, did the pipe freeze due to a general power outage? Or were the residents away and had not left the heat on?
I would think that if the other 5 property owners were forced to leave their homes (as occurs in flood areas) by a govermental entity, their own policies might possibly cover some ALE due to forced evacuation. However, we'd need to know exactly what caused the damage to these 5 properties and whether they are covered losses in the 5 property owners policies.
I am not assuming that flood is the reason these 5 owners were required to leave.
But Jim will enlighten us, yes?
|Posted on Monday, January 31, 2000 - 2:51 pm: |
OK, under the HO-3 policy there would be no coverage for the foundation elements, or earth movement, BUT I have denied this and then seen them paid in exactly similar circumstanes in Ohio. Now, if they had the foresight to have a flood policy, there would in fact be coverage for this peril, as the occurance was caused by flood emminating from "any source" and covering more than one property: i.e. the municipality.
With regard to the other 5 , unless they had an endorsement for "law and ordinance" i would not belive there is coverage.
Ok, some more input please, we all have to participate in the game, as Jim is getting bored sitting on 20" of snow with only a few dogs and a beautiful girl to keep him company.
|Posted on Monday, January 31, 2000 - 12:52 pm: |
HERE'S A COVERAGE QUESTION FOR ALL OF YOU:
The Associated Press this morning reports that a 30" water line ruptured from freezing in College Park, Maryland yesterday with the resultant damage of knocking a house off of it's foundation. You are called out to inspect the damage and handle the claim?
Assume that the policyholder has an HO-3 policy.
Is there coverage? Why or why not? Under what circumstances might there be coverage or might there not be coverage?
5 other property owners were forced to leave their homes as a result of this rupture as well. It is assumed that they had to rent hotel rooms and seek meals elsewhere. What coverage are these 5 property owners entitled to?
Lets' hear from the Pros and Newbee's alike.