Yes, the loss is covered, because it is not excluded. The pool does qualify as an “other structure on the insured premises” for open perils protection.

The “no risk” exclusion of loss by shrinking goes on to talk about “resultant” cracking of structural elements leading to the inference that “shrinking” in general is not excluded, but shrinking of the type that can and does lead to structural cracking. This is not the case here.

The “concurrent causation” exclusion of loss by faulty, inadequate, or defective maintenance (on the part of the pool people) cannot be applied because of the exception to the exclusion covering any ensuing loss that is not itself excluded.

From a New York Subscriber: I question the answer as relates to the damage to the liner of an in-ground pool caused by shrinking. You cite an example in which pool water was apparently lowered too far and thus caused the liner to shrink. While this may be possible, in reality the liners are made of a very pliable rubber-like material, which over time develops cracks or holes. Sun and chemical action causes any rubberized material to shrink and crack.

Using your logic an insurance company could find itself paying for any of these types of losses where the liner shrinks and cracks over time. It would seem as though the wear and tear exclusion should have been mentioned in this answer.

From the editors: If the insurance company can prove that the liner damage is a function of aging rather than the accidental mishandling that the insured suggests, then certainly you are correct. The question that was presented to us had to do with the insurer's denial based on the “shrinkage” exclusion and on the “faulty maintenance” exclusion, neither one of which is deemed to be appropriate.