| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
 Posted - 06/02/2003 : 15:27:28
|
| I would like some coverage opinions in either direction. Very heavy recent rain storm here in Florida has caused a home owners pool to float destroying the cement pool, river rock decking and the screened enclosure. Damage also to the stucco soffits of the home from the attached screened enclosure as it flexed and rose up six feet from the ground. I am hearing that there may not be any coverage for the pool but what about the resulting damage to the structures? It looks like a standard HO3 policy placed on the home by the mortgage company. I would like to hear if anyone has handled a claim like this before and what were the results of that particular claim. THANKS ALL P.S. I tried to attache a photo but could not for some reason. Am I missing some obvious step. I hit insert photo, browsed for my photo then attached but it brought up three reasons why I could not attache. All of which in my opinion are incorrect. Thanks Again |
Edited by - Wes on 06/02/2003 15:45:06 |
|
|
345
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2003 : 18:18:29
|
| No coverage for in ground hot tubs either. You should have heard all the wailing and knashing of teeth by homeowners after Hurricane Irene in Miami. Hot tubs just rose from the ground with the water table, broke pipes, burned out pumps, etc. |
 |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2003 : 19:07:40
|
Wes, a couple of questions, to make the picture clearer.
"Heavy rain" itself, is not likely the cause of the reported damage. Did heavy rain cause an accumulation of surface water, or cause something else to happen that resulted in the damage stated? Will it / could it be said that the heavy rain created / resulted in a pressure or weight of water to cause the damage? If so, why, what technically supports that?
For clarity, please confirm that the "cement pool" is inground or above ground installation.
When I think of, or visualize "river rock decking", I think "patio", not deck. That is, a patio is normally considered as a surface built item onto the grade level of ground, whereas a deck is normally raised above ground grade level. Please clarify. If you are going to stick with "deck", was it attached to the dwelling?
In how you explain that the soffits were damaged - i.e. from "attached" screened enclosure - the screened enclosure would be a "structure attached to the dwelling" for Coverage A consideration; are we in agreement on that?
Look forward to more details from you. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2003 : 20:22:19
|
| It's not covered under the HO-3 policy. |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2003 : 21:04:55
|
| This pool was sitting empty because of a leak in its system. The heavy rain caused the water table to quickly rise which is common here in Florida. This caused the inground pool to float like a boat. The patio is a ground level concrete slab surfaced in what is referred to as river rock down here. It is what was popular before (cool deck). What about the resulting damage to the decking, the attached bird cage enclosure and the damage to the home caused by the cage pulling away from it? The patio is connected to the home but there is a drainage channel in the patio and this is where the patio seperates from damaged to non damaged. The home has clear and obvious stress cracks all thru the soffiting system caused by the uplifting force of the attached screened enclosure. This entire structure; pool, cage and patio is now sitting six feet higher than where it was a week ago. The framing of the enclosure is (was) lag bolted to the soffiting system. |
Edited by - Wes on 06/02/2003 21:07:07 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2003 : 21:07:29
|
Jim, if I look at Wes's post as his log notes or summarized notes of the cause of the noted claim, I'm not able to come to the all encompassing conclusion you have; I don't have enough information to comment on coverage for the four noted areas of damage.
When you say, "it's" not covered, I take it that you are saying that all the noted damage - pool, decking, enclosure, and soffits - are not covered.
All I know about the reported cause is, "very heavy recent rain storm ....".
I was not able to close all the doors to any possible coverage to one or more of the claimed damage areas, based on a reported cause of only; "very heavy recent rain storm ....".
Please share with us why there is absolutely no need for any further information, such as I asked in my post to Wes; to make your conclusion. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2003 : 21:36:56
|
Okay, the picture is clearer now.
The "decking" is a patio, and it plus the pool, attached structure to the dwelling (enclosure), and soffits are not covered for this loss.
Jim, for my own insight, I would still appreciate knowing how you came to your conclusion based solely on Wes's 1st post. |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2003 : 12:34:11
|
Because Jimbo knows that regardless of what insuing damaged was caused when the sidewalk rose six feet up, the approximate cause of the loss was the subsurface water pressure pushing on the pool deck and it just ain't a covered loss. Right Jim?
I know you know that Clayton. You are just mad 'cuz the Ducks are behind in the Stanley Cup.
Go Ice Dogs!
CD
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2003 : 13:31:38
|
CD, you are exactly right (GMTA) and my policy interpretation position in this example had nothing to do with Clayton's Stanley Cup losses.
Now Clayton, before I respond to your question with an indepth analysis of the policy implications for this swimming pool claims scenario, it would be much easier if you could shed any light on why you read the gentleman's initial post and ever thought that there could be any coverage for such loss under an HO-3 policy. What were you thinking and why?
I did immediately (and correctly as it turns out) visualize the risk as an in-ground pool with ground level deck, as was later described in the second post by Wes.
I also recalled the laws of physics which suggest that even empty, that swimming pools fill during rain storms, and the weight of water would make them go down not up.
Those were the initial thoughts which led me to the policy interpretation position which I espoused, as well as the same recognition that CD has, that a non-covered peril which triggers other proximate damages will still result in non-covered consequential damages under this scenario.
To me at least, this was a clear cut case of non-coverage via policy interpretation, based simply and solely on first impressions, despite however skimpy the details were presented.
Now, it's your turn.
|
Edited by - JimF on 06/03/2003 13:47:36 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2003 : 16:24:20
|
Jim, I considered Wes's 1st post as the "claim file notes" and that there were no pictures available to relate to the notes.
In hindsight, my approach was my 'old school' ingrained methods of wanting all the available facts, especially when the present facts did not create an "absolute" picture from which I would make a conclusion; especially if it involved a denial.
The few scenarios that came to mind related to the heavy rain floating a pool, obviously involved exclusions; but I have seen odd things happen to pools that were covered. The "decking" which I could only envision as patio, needed to be clearer in my mind; and I don't recall ever hearing about an attached structure flexing and rising 6 feet from the ground based on heavy rain - just something I had not dealt with before.
You do not need to provide an indepth analysis for me of the policy implications for this claim scenario. With Wes's 2nd post, the picture then became abundantly clear to me.
It wasn't a matter of me thinking there was any coverage following Wes's 1st post, rather I was not satisfied with the amount of initial information; to cast this entire claim off quickly as a not covered scenario. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2003 : 17:54:11
|
Clayton, I was struck by and am curious about your remark: "but I have seen odd things happen to pools that were covered".
I wonder if you might share a few 'war stories' from the trenches on unusual pool losses from a causation and coverage standpoint.
Please share some of those odd things you mentioned so we may all learn more about coverage implications for pools, of which there are many.
But I cannot resist asking if you have ever seen, heard of or encountered a claim of an in-ground swimming pool 'floating', even as a result of a flood?
Thanks. |
Edited by - JimF on 06/03/2003 17:58:52 |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 00:41:28
|
| Ok guys for your viewing pleasure I was able to add some photos of the pool into the Cado Photo Gallery under the Other Storm Damage section. |
|
|
|
AllCatMan
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 00:46:40
|
WHAT IF..........
THE POOL HAD A COVER THAT WHEN FILLED AND OVERLOADED BY RAIN PULLED THE EDGING STONES AWAY AND INTO THE POOL, WHICH RESULTED IN A HOLE IN THE BOTTOM, WHICH RESULTED IN THE POOL DRAINING AND THEN FLOATING UP AND CAUSING ALL OF THE AFORE MENTIONED DAMAGES IN THE PREVIOUS SCENERIO...........????
JUST A THOUGHT. |
Join in the Chat Room nightly 7cst/8est. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 06:22:04
|
Ok, let me get this straight:
A CONCRETE in-ground pool has deck edging pull away when the swimming pool liner collapses from weight of water, with patio edging stone falling into the pool, resulting in the stone causing a tear/break/rupture/hole in the bottom of the CONCRETE pool, thereby causing a leak of the pool water, then complete water drainage, then during a RAIN STORM (which would normally fill and thus weigh down a pool) the CONCRETE pool starts to FLOAT.
(Just to assist in examining this equation, assume the concrete pool is 20' x 20' which equals 400 square feet. Assuming a mere 2 inch pour (we're not sure if this pool was a concrete pour, shotcrete or gunite installed) for the bottom (not even including thickness and weight of the pool sides), the approximate weight of this pool bottom (alone) would be 400 x 26 pounds = 10,400 or more than 5 tons (not including steel and rebar). Without knowing the pool depth, it would be conservative to suggest that the pool side weights would equal twice the bottom weight, bringing the total pool weight to in excess if 15 tons)
Now let me get this straight once again: Is this the scenario you are suggesting could have occurred because of damage from a rain storm? A 15 ton plus concrete swimming pool simply floats away during a rain storm?
What do you think CatDaddy?
It's a pretty incredulous concept for a claim, isn't it?
(By the way, under AllCatMan's scenario, I do not believe the loss would be covered under the HO-3 because of the policy exclusion for swimming pool damage due to collapse). |
Edited by - JimF on 06/04/2003 07:21:38 |
|
|
|
DonP
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 06:57:09
|
| Suppose a large tree is blown over in a wind storm and a large branch goes into the pool and punctures the bottom of the pool. The water then drains out and the pool floats as in the above scenerio, is this not covered under a HO-3? |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 07:12:00
|
Don, under your scenario, yes the pool damaged by a wind blown tree would be covered under the HO-3.
But I have to ask, do you really believe that concrete swimming pools float?
Where did all that water go that drained out?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Floating Pool
Forum Locked
