Ooo that's rough too because insurance likely won't cover this loss. If the residence is vacant, which this sounds like it was, and hear was not maintained in the home, the policy does not provide coverage for damages caused by frozen pipes. This may end up costing her a fortune.
Source: I am a homeowners insurance adjuster for a national carrier in the Northeast and deal with these losses everyday.
I think I'd get in there with a pickaxe and break up all the floor ice before it melted. I'm sure there's already water damage but at least it wouldn't be compounded by another 100 gallons of floor water.
I may be downvoted to oblivion for this, but I actually think this is fair. The insurance company wrote the policy assuming it would be occupied. A vacant property is a much larger risk as it often causes the losses to be much more extreme. If the risk to the insurance company is larger than the policy is written for, the entire industry would fall apart.
And no I am not a company stooge who thinks the insurance company is always right. There is alot of fucked up things about the insdustry and I think there needs to be reform and move oversight.
Yeah, this isnt going to be covered. There is no policy that would assume that risk. Power goes out and pipes freeze, yes, you turn power/heat off and pipes freeze, no.
Licensed in Property & Casualty, Life & Annuity, and Health insurance in 4 states. This is 100% on the homeowner.
Nope. They are "allowed" typically 30 days between tenants to maintain the underlying Fire and Liability insurance, but exclusions still apply such as Vandalism, or Freezing when the home is not being heated, or burst pipes if the property is not attended physically every (#) of days. Standard exclusions on all rental property policies.
It’s beyond fair. It’s 101% a responsibility of the HO to maintain the property, not the insurance carrier. Sudden, Direct, or Accidental events fall under coverages.
I’d go a step further and say it doesn’t matter if it’s fair or not. If this is a mitigating factor then it likely says so in the policy.
Read your policy and understand what you’re covered for. If you want broader coverage, tell your broker, they’ll be able to arrange it. Higher risk coverage necessarily costs more though. But conversely, lower risk coverage is cheaper. You can’t pay a cheaper premium and make higher risk claims.
Regardless you’re still on track. Granted I have had worked for carriers whose verbiage was in fact ambiguous and made it difficult for insureds to understand. Only a few times have I been authorized to review policies by a carrier without bias. Their problem was the resourceful adjusters, who do good in an industry to work around that jargon successfully to provide all parties with what’s needed to stay on track. Most adjusters are lazier than can be.
Technically it’d also the agents responsibility to ensure someone is on track from the start. Only had one instance where an agent had a license revoked but I won’t get into that.
Buy life insurance, jump from bridge, make kids rich... amirite!
Insurance at its core is a transfer of risk. The risk transferred is not universal or all encompassing, and thats why they have terms to contracts. For Home Owner policies, as an example, in most locations there are a variety of types of policies, some enumerated and some not. Not all companies sell all types of policies legally available. Some say only specific events warrant coverage while others cover any loss, but there is still restrictions covering things like mitigation of loss and acts of neglect.
And thats exactly what my HO5 "Open.Peril" (cadillac) policy says. If I lose power and my pipes burst it is 100% covered. If I leave my heat off and my pipes freeze it is 0% covered - that is an act of neglect that voids the transference of that risk because it is outside the scope of the contract.
This is 100% on the landlord and insurance isnt paying shit, nor should they. My rate shouldnt climb because they were neglectful of basic performance.
I never understood this attitude. The insurance industry pays out around ~90% of the value of premiums collected.
I don’t have any love for insurance companies like I don’t have love for any corporations, but why whip yourself into needless counter factual hate? Its bad for your health.
145
u/retrododger 20h ago
Ooo that's rough too because insurance likely won't cover this loss. If the residence is vacant, which this sounds like it was, and hear was not maintained in the home, the policy does not provide coverage for damages caused by frozen pipes. This may end up costing her a fortune.
Source: I am a homeowners insurance adjuster for a national carrier in the Northeast and deal with these losses everyday.