Question: I have a question regarding the temperature/humidity exclusion under form IM 7053 08/12. I have a claim that involved humidity that entered solenoids that sat at a builder's risk project for six to 12 months. Moisture got into the circuits and caused corrosion. Would this fall within this exclusion? I am trying to understand the purpose of the exclusion. Thank you for your help.
— Ohio Subscriber
Answer: Changes in temperature and humidity are a general condition of the planet, and are not usually a fortuitous loss. Even in very humid areas, it takes some time for corrosion to occur, and the property was left for up to 12 months. The exception applies when the temperature or humidity changes lead to another loss; for example if dampness causes wires to short out and cause a fire. The resulting fire would be covered.
Question: Based on HO 00 03 10 00 with endorsement HO 04 27 04 02, it sounds like humidity in an attic area where mold was unknown and hidden would be covered. Is that correct? This particular home also had mold on the siding, eaves and roof. This does not appear to be covered, as it should have been known in Hawaii with high humidity to pressure wash the exterior. Would this interpretation also be correct, that there is no coverage for the mold damage to the exterior of the dwelling?
— Hawaii Subscriber
Answer: The endorsement excludes humidity unless the mold/fungi are hidden behind walls/ceilings. An attic is different than the space behind the drywall and the exterior wall. Attics are rooms in and of themselves and are often used for storage. While the insured may not go into the attic very often, it's not exactly hidden from view. The loss to the attic is excluded, as is the loss to the outside. The insured has an obligation to maintain his property.
Continue reading…
Damages resulting from a long-time loss of power during extreme weather could intensify for weeks after a qualifying event. (Photo: iStock)
|Long-time power loss
Question: Due to a massive ice storm, we have many policyholders who have been without power, some going on four weeks. We are getting some claims for damage that appears related to the general changes in temperature and humidity levels. Examples include floors buckling, and cracks in drywall and trim. Since these damages are not a direct result of a covered peril, we believe there is no coverage in the case of the named peril policies (HO2, FO2, etc). In the case of the HO3, some also believe the damage is excluded under the exclusion for settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion… of… walls, floors, roofs or ceilings. Can you please provide an assessment of this urgent matter?
— Kentucky Subscriber
Answer: Under the HO 02, there would be no coverage for buckling and such, since indeed there is no named peril that fits the situation. However, under the HO 03, you need to look at the exclusion in context with the other exclusions. If the floor is buckling because of wear or the insured's fondness for growing orchids (thereby overly humidifying the home), then the loss is excluded. However, if the cause of the buckling is a covered power failure, then there is coverage for the loss.
Question: Under Personal Auto ISO form PP 00 01 06 98, adjuster is denying a claim for mold damages to the inside of a pristine older convertible in storage and using “wear and tear” as the exclusion for other than collision (comprehensive) coverage. While I am inclined to think that most property insurance wants to prevent coverage for this kind of thing and that there is probably good reason to deny coverage, I am uncomfortable with how it is being denied. The car was stored in a garage during a very wet, hot, humid part of last summer, which is the suspected reason for the mold forming. Does wear and tear suffice for excluding coverage in your opinion?
— Ohio Subscriber
Answer: The mold was caused by moisture and humidity. This is not the same as wear and tear since neither of those things causes mold. The wear and tear exclusion applies to damage to a car that occurs from use and usually occurs over time as the car ages; the normal result of using the car. But, mold damage is not the normal result of using the car. So, we do not see the wear and tear exclusion applying in this instance. Moreover, there is no exclusion in the PAP for damage caused by mold or moisture and there are no other exclusions that would prevent coverage in this instance.
Analysis brought to you by the experts at FC&S Online, the unquestioned authority on insurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&C industry. To find out more — or to have YOUR coverage question answered — visit www.nationalunderwriter.com/FCS.
See also:
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.