Our homeowners insureds had a strange loss. They were in the process of having their basement re-built by a construction company, when they realized that the work was causing the floor of the living room to sink. They ordered the construction crew to stop the work until they could have an engineer inspect.
Meanwhile, the local municipal inspector told them the home was not safe to live in, and ordered them to vacate until the work was completed. We turned in a claim for collapse to the insurer, and they agree the collapse is a result of faulty methods in renovation. However, they take the position that additional living expense is not covered, since the insureds did not immediately vacate the premises when the floor first began to sink.
What is your opinion?
Michigan Subscriber
The only criterion for additional living expense is that a loss covered under the section I – property coverages makes that part of the "residence premises" where the insured resides not fit to live in. The loss occurred when the floor sank because of the faulty construction; the inspector merely confirmed, albeit officially, that the loss had occurred. The insureds are entitled to the coverage from the point they moved out of the home.
This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers
Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.
- Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
- Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
- Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
- Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
- Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact our Sales Department at 1-800-543-0874 or email [email protected]