Our insured has a commercial property policy. The insured suffered a collapse loss when pigeons made a hole under the eaves of the roof and deposited droppings measuring several feet thick between the roof and the ceiling, ultimately caving in the ceiling. The insurer has denied the claim, citing the exclusion for damage done by insects, birds or other animals. The insurer also declines the loss under the additional coverage of collapse, which reads, “we will pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from risks of direct physical loss involving collapse of a building or any part of a building caused only by one or more of the following: … (3) hidden insect or vermin damage.” The insurer declines the loss stating that pigeons are not vermin. There is an FC&S Q&A (943) regarding a raccoon as not being vermin, but I do not believe this is dispositive. Please comment.

Tennessee Subscriber

The tenth edition of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines vermin as “small, common harmful animals (as lice or fleas) that are difficult to control.” Pigeons, as outlined in your loss scenario, appear to fit this definition. They are small, common animals that are hard to control. (In fact, pigeons are referred to as “flying rats” in most northeastern urban areas.)

The fact that the FC&S contains a question where we expressed an opinion that damage done by one raccoon could not be excluded as vermin damage is not relevant to your question. In that Q&A, the writer was interpreting exclusionary language, which is construed narrowly; in this question, we are examining coverage language, which must be broadly construed in favor of the insured.