We are working a claim where tenants occupied the property. The original tenant sublet the property (without landlord consent). The second tenant vacated the property. The first tenant returned and noticed that there was standing water.

Landlord maintains he checked property at a minimum every 30 days from exterior and interior inspected 3 months prior to discovery.

First tenant notifies landlord of standing water. Landlord contacts mitigation upon discovery.

There was a pot under sink (where leak likely occurred) and dry rot in adjoining room– indicating possibly overrun from water. Carrier denied stating prolonged issue. Landlord claims date of discovery. Carrier claims prolonged issue and denies claim. Policy states “Weeks, Months or Years”

Should this claim be covered?

Pennsylvania Subscriber

One of your issues is that someone knew of the leak beforehand, since the pot was under the sink.

Also, it sounds like the property was vacant more than 30 thirty days, even though it was checked on, vacant property is excluded. Looking in through a window is not a sufficient check of vacant or even occupied property. While in general, the date of discovery is the date of loss, since there is obvious damage over time in this case, and dry rot in the other room, that supports the carrier's denial of the claim for an ongoing leak.