If loss by fire results, we will pay for that resulting loss.” Additionally, the insurance company cited the following exclusion: We do not pay for loss: “(1.) by weather conditions if any peril excluded by this policy contributes to the loss in any way.”

A few things I'd like an opinion on:

(1) Does the absence of commas in the exclusion language “by nuclear action or radiation or radioactive contamination, however caused”, affect how it should be interpreted? Also, furthered in the exclusion, they defined nuclear action as: nuclear reaction, discharge, radiation, or radioactive contamination… In my estimation, here they're clearly defining radiation as nuclear radiation; which I would interpret to result from nuclear fission.

(2) Could it not be argued that the cause of loss was in fact the reflection of the solar heat from the low-e windows? The rest of the home was unaffected.

(3) If the company is going to cite the nuclear exclusion, why is it then that we will pay for losses where a hot pan damaged another surface?

Kentucky Subscriber

A: When terms are not defined in a policy courts go to what an ordinary insured would have available, which is a standard desk reference. Merriam Webster online defines nuclear as: of, relating to, producing, or using energy that is created when the nuclei of atoms are split apart or joined together; having or involving nuclear weapons; used in or produced by a nuclear reaction (as fission) <nuclear fuel> <nuclear waste> <nuclear energy>. Radiation is defined as a type of dangerous and powerful energy that is produced by radioactive substances and nuclear reactions. No one is wearing radioactive protective gear when they venture outside because of nuclear radiation from the sun. While astronomers tell us that the sun generates energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in its core, that fusion reaction is not an issue here on earth as a day to day hazard; if so, life as we know it would not exist. Even solar panels are not generating or creating dangerous amounts of radiation. Your peril is reflection of heat caused by solar energy, and the heat warped the siding, shutters, mailbox, etc. The damage should be covered, and since the neighbors have low-e windows that are reflecting the sunlight, the new siding/shutters/mailbox should be resistant to strong sunlight.

When an Insured's Artwork Gets Damaged

Q: I have a question on a homeowner's claim. Some artwork painted by the insured got damaged and she is quite talented. She does not sell the artwork, so we do not have to worry about the business limitation on the homeowner's policy. But the insurance company only wants to pay for the materials and not her labor. I think that they are incorrect and that she should be entitled to material and labor (even if minimum wage) for the number of hours to make a new painting. The insured is entitled to be made whole and the only way that is happening is to allow materials and then labor hours to paint a new picture. Is this correct?

New York Subscriber

A: The problem with artwork is that talent is very subjective; what one person thinks is work by a talented person someone else thinks their cat could do better. Likewise, a piece of art may not be worth the amount of labor that went into it, regardless of how talented the insured may or may not be. The insured in entitled to compensation for a picture of like kind and quality; if it's a picture of a barn, she is entitled to a completed picture of a barn. If she chooses to recreate her work that is up to her, but she is entitled to like kind and quality. The world is full of artists who have died whose paintings may or may not have much value; if their pictures get destroyed the insureds are entitled to the best likeness, but not the cost of having someone paint an exact copy.

What Constitutes a Wind Event?

Q: Our policyholder was getting out of their vehicle in a parking lot. The wind takes the door out of the insured's hand and the door strikes the vehicle next to them. There was not a “Windstorm” or any unusual event. We currently set these up under wind. Is this correct if it is not an unusual wind event? Are we negligent for damages to vehicle our door strikes because of being blown out of insured hands?

New York Subscriber

A: This is a collision loss if the insured cannot establish facts showing some sort of wind event.

The main problem with claims involving windstorm damage is establishing the facts, as you alluded to in your question. In the majority of cases in which courts have held that auto damage was caused by the force of the wind, losses were held covered by comprehensive insurance, or some other form of insurance protecting against windstorm.

In a case similar to the facts you described, the insured maintained that his auto had been damaged by the wind, which rolled the car out of a carport and down a hill into a tree. However, the wind on the day of the incident was described as a moderate breeze (between 18 and 23 miles per hour) – there was no unusual wind event. Thus, the court held this was a collision loss and not due to the windstorm. This case is McCelland v. Northwestern Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 86 S.E.2d 729 (Ga. App. 1955).

Accordingly, it is our interpretation of the facts you presented that this claim should not be set up under wind, unless the insured can show that the damage did result from some unusual wind force. If the insured cannot, then this claim should be covered under collision.