As the result of water damage?
I have an acquaintance (seriously!) who mentioned that she was going to have to pay a lot of money to repair damaged/rotting floors as the result of some leaky pipes that were replaced a year or so ago. Not knowing any details about her policy (and not having my own in front of me to compare), I’m just curious. . .
In general, do policies typically cover this type of damage?
In general, no.
Well, I know at least two people who have had insurance pay for floor replacements due to failure of washing machine hoses/dishwashers. So I’d say yes, at least some policies cover it.
However - I’d bet that this refers to things simply rotting as a result of aging materials, poor maintenance etc. If the rot can be tied to a specific insurable incident - such as the pipe leak - your friend may be able to get the insurance company to pony up. A friend of mine wound up essentially having her entire kitchen replaced because of something like this. Another friend got her carpets replaced due to a leaking air conditioner that repeatedly flooded their basement.
IANAL, IANIA (Insurance Agent) etc. etc. etc. Some caveats: This might be tough to prove with the insurance company, especially if they weren’t called in when the original leak occurred. Depending on the cost of the replacement vs. the insurance deductible, plus the very real risk of being red-flagged as someone who (gasp) actually expects the insurance company to make good on its policy, it may not be worth running this by the insurance company.
Yeah. General rule is one thing. The fun is in the exceptions.
And then there is this:
From the same source.
The most common homeowner’s policy is the industry standard HO-3. It provides coverage for all losses except those which are specifically excluded. Here is a good summary of the exclusions.
So the answer to your question is, it depends on why the pipes leaked. If it was because of earthquake, or age and neglect, the answer is no. For most other causes, the answer would be yes. (Assuming that your friend has the HO-3).
Note that for some causes–latent construction defects, settling, or freezing–the repair to the pipes itself would not be covered, but the ensuing floor damage would be. Therefore, your friend’s failure to report the pipe leakage at the time of occurrence would not necessary redound against her (because the pipe repair would not have been covered), assuming that the floor damage was not discovered until later and should not or could not have been discovered and reported earlier by a reasonably prudent person.
Hair splitting time. If the pipe breaks because of a non-covered peril (earthquake, rat gnawed through it, workmanship failure) then the pipe itself is not covered. But the resulting damge from the released domestic water would be, provided said release was sudden and accidental. Rot caused by age or fungus (dry rot) is typically not going to be covered, but if the floor/roof collapses as a result of the hithertofore (heh) undetected dry rot, then you get a new floor…provided your policy dosn’t exclude collapse/partial collapse. :rolleyes: It’s a little game we play caled “efficient proximate cause.” What caused the building to burn down? Was it the earthquake, which typically releases insignificant localized heat energy at the planet’s surface; or was it the fire coming from the gas main that was ruptured in the basement when the house shifted off its foundation? Presto: loss by fire, you get your house paid for!
This is largely correct. We often pay for water damage that has occurred over time, despite policy stipulations of sudden & accidental release of water, because it can not be demonstrated that the homeowner ignored the problem for a long time–they may have not known about the leak until the floor caved in. The rot isn’t covered, but the collapsed/partially collapsed floor is.
But to the OP: Sounds like this all hinges on the what the cause of loss was determined to be. Was it partial collapse (sagging floor)? Total collapse? Most policies cover those. Is the only existing problem rot? Probably SOL under the homeoener’s policy. But if the pipes were replaced professionally, then the person who did the repair would be liable for damages if it can be demonstrated that they made a mistake. If they correctly installed a bad pipe, then you need to look to the manufacturer of the pipe. You see how this works? Water losses just plain suck.
As I understand it, there was a leaking pipe above the floor. The residents were content just to keep the water mopped up (linoleum floor). That was a year ago, and they did get the plumbing work done. About two months ago, they noticed that the floor had started sagging.
Time to read the policy, my friend…wait…residents?
Is this a rental property? With damage from, I’m guessing, kitchen sink plumbing?
:: Inigo backs quietly to the door ::
A little old lady (the titled owner), her grandson, his girlfriend, and her four children.
Definitely time to read the policy, or at least have it translated by the agent. Some policies don’t work if the dwelling is not owner-occupied, others may cut you some slack if it’s occupied only by relatives, but don’t trust to hope. More about that I will not say.
What kind of floor damage are we talking about? Are the floor joists actually rotten and beyond use? Or is the floorboard/sheathing merely warped & puckered? this whole repair might be less expensive than the policy deductible, or just inexpensive enough to make the following something to ponder: Pursue the repair through insurance and risk policy cancellation (check with your agent to see what the likelihood of this is); or just fix it your own self.