The carrier has denied the loss under the following exclusions, but we do not agree that they apply:

1. Water below the surface of the ground seeping through the foundation

We believe water from a drain pipe off premises should be covered.

2. The building or structure first sustains damage by a covered cause of loss to an exterior surface through which the ice, rain, snow, sleet, water, ice, sand or dust enters.

We believe the collapsed pipe off premises is a covered loss—collapse.

3. They do not feel the collapse of this pipe meets the criteria under the peril of collapse.

We believe it does under the provision for decay that is hidden from view, unless the presence of decay is known.

It was not known until such time as the pipe was dug up.

4. There is no coverage for mold available under the policy.

We believe mold is covered due to a covered loss, collapse off premises, and the mold damage to this unit should be covered.

We would be most interested in your coverage assessment of this situation.

New Hampshire Subscriber

This answer is based on the wording of the ISO Special Causes of Loss Form, CP 10 30.

Generally, the collapse additional coverage applies to covered property, which the culvert would not be considered. Underground drains and pipes are normally considered property not covered. So, if the crushed pipe forced water under the ground to seep through the insured's foundation, the carrier is correct that the loss would not be covered.

If the busted drain pipe or overflow of gutters (which does not seem to be related to the drain issue) caused surface water to enter under the front door, this would also be considered an excluded loss under the water exclusion.

The pipe does not meet the criteria for collapse caused by hidden decay. You said the pipe was crushed by a boulder. As for the mold coverage, the additional coverage for fungus (which includes mold) states that coverage is provided if mold results from one of the specified causes of loss. Even if it were determined that collapse was the cause of loss, it is not a specified cause of loss as defined on the form.

Regarding the limitation requiring the building or structure to sustain damage from a covered cause of loss that allows rain to enter, again, if it were determined that the crushed pipe was a covered collapse, the collapse itself did not damage the building itself, allowing rain to enter. The rain, as surface water, flooded under the door and/or seeped through the foundation. The collapse did not cause damage to the building or structure itself.