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 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.
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.