The code coverage exists for both damaged and undamaged portions of the structure. The insurance company is granting coverage on the foundation but rejecting coverage on the septic system. The insurer states that the foundation is necessary to reconstruct the building but the septic is not. We generally think that the septic system is part of the structure's plumbing system and without this system the house cannot be reconstructed either. What is your position in regards to the septic system?

New Hampshire Subscriber

Looking at the coverage in the ISO HO 00 03 05 11, there is no separate ordinance or law endorsement that does anything but increase the basic coverage in the policy. Your wording may be different, which will change the answer. The ISO form provides ordinance or law coverage for demolition, reconstruction, remodeling, removal, or replacement of the portion of the undamaged portion of the building necessary to complete the remodeling, repair, or replacement of the damaged portion of the building.

For example, if the kitchen is burned and gutted, it may be necessary to demolish and rebuild an adjoining room or a room above the kitchen to make the repairs to the kitchen. It would not be necessary to redo a room at the far end of the house, since it would not directly affect the repair of the kitchen. While the septic must be rebuilt in order to comply with code, the structure does not rely on it for support the way it does the foundation. It sounds like the septic is not being redone due to damage to part of a building, just due to the fact that county inspectors discovered that is was out of code when they inspected the rest of the property. If this is the case the carrier is correct, the upgrade of the septic is not covered.