If the cost of protecting the tenants' personal property is not covered under the building's flood policy, would it be covered under the tenants' flood policy, even though the tenants' personal property suffered no damage?

Please give us your opinion.

Missouri Subscriber

A

If the contractor you hire to repair the building damaged your tenants' property in the course of his or her work, he or she would be responsible to the tenant for the damage. The contractor, therefore has a responsibility to protect the tenants' property from damage during the repair of the building. The contractor's cost of providing this protection is as much a cost of doing business as is buying the supplies to make the repairs.

Since the cost of protecting the tenants' property is a cost of your contractor's doing business, it should be figured into the total cost of repairing your building. As part of the cost of repairing your building, the cost of protecting your tenants' personal property is covered under your building's flood insurance policy, because your contractor could not proceed with repairing the building without taking steps to protect the tenants' property.

In answer to the second part of your question, covered property normally must suffer insured damaged to trigger the policy. The standard flood insurance policy issued under the National Flood Insurance Act does provide coverage for the expense of moving personal property out of a flood harm's way to protect it; but in your case, the flood has come and gone with the property suffering no damage. Since there was no flood damage to the tenants' personal property, their flood policy would not cover the cost of protecting the property while the building is being repaired.