Question: We would like an opinion related to a comprehensive coverage claim based on a standard ISO auto policy. A claim was reported where a large insect got into the air intake and blocked the mass airflow sensor on a covered vehicle. This caused an irregular fuel/air mixture and resulted in damage to all three catalytic converters. They were replaced. The driver did not notice an issue until the vehicle stalled while accelerating. There were no soft/hard codes or warning lights that would have warned the driver of the problem. The mechanic was surprised the vehicle did not produce an error code for the fuel system problem. The question is: Is this a covered loss under comprehensive coverage? And the second question is: If it is a covered loss, would the exclusion for "mechanical, or electrical breakdown or failure" apply since the vehicle did not send a warning/error code for the irregular fuel/air mixture?

— Maryland subscriber

Answer: While an insect isn't exactly a bird or an animal, it's not excluded either. The failure of the vehicle to send any codes isn't the direct cause of loss, the insect is. Most people don't have a vehicle towed to a shop when a warning light comes on; they drive it to the shop, and may even wait a day or two for an appointment if the car sounds normal, depending on their schedule. This is normal behavior, so even if a light had come on, the damage could have been done before the vehicle got to the shop. The loss should be covered. See also: These 10 cities have the highest pest infestation |

Rodent problem spurs massive cleanup

Question: Our insured carries a commercial auto policy (garage policy). It has collision and comprehensive coverage. Our insured owns an open lot that is used to park vehicles for long-term periods. They found a rat infestation within the lot and decided to inspect each and every vehicle. They found that about 50% of the vehicles showed signs of rat droppings and rat urine inside the vehicle engines. As a result, they had to clean the engines of those vehicles. The insured decided that in order to prevent further damages, he should hire an expert to fumigate the premises. He also decided to put some kind of preventive pill inside the vehicles in order to avoid future damages. The insured argues that the insurance company should pay for the following expenses: fumigation of the premise and pills that were placed inside the vehicle to avoid future infestations. He argues that this should be covered because the policy states under the 'duties in the event of an accident' section that the insured should take all the reasonable steps to protect the covered auto from further damage. The adjuster says that none of the above mentioned expenses should be covered. He understands that both expenses were incurred in order to avoid a new loss, not to prevent further damage. What is your opinion of this issue?

— Florida subscriber

Answer: The insured has an interesting argument but we agree with the adjuster. The coverage is for damage to the covered autos, not the fumigation of the premises. The garage policy is not going to pay for damages or work done to the premises. As for the prevention of further loss, the clause states that the insured should keep a record of the expenses for consideration in the settlement of the claim. So, there may be an obligation on the part of the insurer to pay such expenses, but the policy language does not absolutely demand it. Also, the adjuster is right that the clause is for preventing further damage to a car that has been damaged and it is not to prevent future damage that may or may not happen. Insurance is not meant to prevent future damage. Finally, you say the insured decided he had to fumigate the place and buy the pills. The duties of the insured after a loss include the duty that the insured is to assume no obligation, make no payment, or incur any expense without the consent of the insurer except at the insured's own cost. If the insured did those things without consulting the insurer, he has breached the agreement and the insurer could have a strong basis for a denial of those expenses. See also: |

• Covering bodily injuries with home, business or auto policies
• Insurance questions arise when vehicles get towed
• 7 ways auto technology is impacting insurance coverage