We have two insureds for whom we need your opinion on separate commercial property losses. Both are covered on the ISO commercial property form, CP 00 10 04 02 with special perils, CP 10 30 04 02. In the first case, the insured's building (both exterior and interior) and business personal property sustained loss from "ice damming." The company adjuster is trying to deny all coverage for external damages based on the exclusion for damage from the "weight of ice and snow." What's your opinion?

Our second insured is a medical office. These doctors rent the entire building, but occupy only the first floor of a three story building. During the winter, our insureds turned the heat off in the unoccupied portion of the building. As a result, the pipes in the unoccupied portion froze and burst, causing considerable damage.

The insurer is denying all coverage based on the requirement that the insured must "do [his] best to maintain heat in the building." We believe that because the insured maintained heat in the occupied portion, the loss should be covered. We'd appreciate your thoughts.

Pennsylvania Subscriber

In the first case, the exclusion the adjuster cites is found in the CP 10 20 04 02, not the CP 10 30. In special form CP 10 30, damage done by ice damming to both the building and the contents inside the building is covered. In the "Limitations" section, the form excludes coverage for damage "resulting from rain, snow, sleet, or ice" to the interior of a building or property contained in it. However, it goes on to give back such coverage if the damage is caused by the "thawing of snow, sleet, or ice on the building or structure." That is what happens with ice damming. Water freezes, and, upon thawing, backs up under shingles or other roofing material.

In the second case, however, the result is not as fortunate for the insureds. Since they rented and had access to the entire building, it was their responsibility to make sure that the heat was on in the entire building. The form clearly says that the insured must do his or her best to maintain heat in the building.

They had access to the entire building and didn't maintain the heat; as a result, the pipes froze and burst. The insurer is properly denying that claim.

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