| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
 Posted - 06/04/2003 : 09:00:10
|
| On floating bodies is a work in which Archimedes lays down the basic principles of hydrostatics. His most famous theorem which gives the weight of a body immersed in a liquid, called Archimedes' principle, is contained in this work. He also studied the stability of various floating bodies of different shapes and different specific gravities. |
 |
|
|
LAW1526
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 09:24:54
|
Jim, I had a loss in N.C where a 2x4 had been blown into a pool and punctured the gunite (not sure this is the right spelling) siding just above the bottom of the pool causing the pool to raise up out of its hole about 18”. I did not believe at the time that a concrete pool could simply raise up out of the ground. After researching the issue it was concluded that when the pool water drained to grade under the pool the pool simply floated up out of the ground. I was told that a concrete pool must maintain water in it at all times to keep it waited down so the pool cannot pop-up out of its sub-surface enclosure.
The other problem with the claim was the amount of rainwater associated with the storm. The amount of rainwater to sub-surface soils could also have caused the pool to float up, therefore no coverage. However the claim was paid because the pool did not maintain its water to keep it waited down as a result of the puncture allowing the pool to float up out of its enclosure.
|
|
|
|
william s cook
53 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 09:35:44
|
Concrete boat construction is still a major industry and much cheaper than 15,000 pounds of steel. During hurricane Andrew I had seven homes permanently moored in a marina that were floating on concrete foundations and broke loose during the storm and sank.
William S Cook |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 09:37:24
|
If you knew the displacement area of the pool in cubic feet times 62.4 pounds and the approx. number of yards of concrete in the sides and bottom you could find out if it would float. It would all depend on the size of the pool and displacement. One thing to consider would be the break away force it would take from the patio. If the pool was anchored to the patio, or if there were deadman anchors attached to the sides. A lot of ifs here that you would have to see to make any determination. I agree with Jim that under the HO-3 I cannot find coverage.
If the cause of the dammage is from the soil becomming liquified and floating the pool is another reason for no coverage.
I can't seem to find a covered cause, all I can find are exclusions. Maybe some one can find something I can't.
I wouldn't like to have the job of explaining this to the insured, but with the good some bad must follow. This is the part of the job most people don't like, I'm sure.
I miss the forum and maybe soon I can be back and participate more responsibly. |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 13:54:11
|
| In Florida this pool floating thing is not unheard of. Most pool repair companies offer floating insurance for the time when they must have the pool empty of water to complete the repairs. I have been told that as a pool owner to never remove more than 2/3 of the water from your pool or floating could be the result. I am also aware of the concrete cargo ships that Bill Cook mentions. Imagine a ship made of concrete, not a boat but huge cargo ships!!! |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 15:24:18
|
| I note something strange in the case of Lenny's comments. If the hole was near the bottom of the wall, and the water table came up enough to float the pool, that is strange. Put a hole in the bottom of a boat and it will sink, concrete or otherwise. The hole would have had to have been put there after the fact, or would it? With a hole in the bottom the water pressure would equalize. |
|
|
|
LAW1526
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 16:00:59
|
| Newt, I should have been more clear as the hole was a large crack. The water leaked out through the crack. Regradless, as Wes has stated large concrete pools must maintain a percentage of water in them or there is the possibilty they will rise out of the ground. The only knowlege I have on this subject is what was explained to me during my resarch for the claim I was working. This information was provided to me from pool installation contractors. |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2003 : 15:55:38
|
Sorry I left you hanging Jim. Traffic.
I would think that the concrete pool is not floating but reacting to the shift in pressure from the water being drained out. While filled, the 1000+ gallons of water in the pool pushes against the concrete walls while the earth and subsurface water on the other side of the pool wall pushes back. There's no winner UNTIL you drain it because then its an unfair fight, with home team winning the battle. Its not floating. Just getting knocked out of the way by Mother Nature. Again, not covered.
ALLCATMAN's example is a head scratcher for me. Is the proximate cause a covered loss? I would lean towards something that is attached to the "surface" to be part of it and thus going down the surface water DENIAL road. I read the policy language. It leaves room for interpretation so I'm sure we'll get several points of view. What do some others think?
|
|
|
|
william s cook
53 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 07:16:17
|
Don't overlook that the water in the pool is the homeowner's personal property that must be replaced along with any chemicals contained in the water.
William S Cook |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 08:53:21
|
I understand your point about the water and chemicals but if the approximate cause is not a covered loss, they would be out of luck unless their is some named-peril coverage for the personal property. Flood is not one.
Speak up my Canadian friend and guide me down the right path. Surface water, no coverage? |
Edited by - CatDaddy on 06/06/2003 08:54:14 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 10:33:00
|
Hey Lannie, regarding Mikey's scenario, it does provide quite a different "twist", and if I understand it correctly as follows;
(a) inground empty pool (liner material u/k)
(b) pool surface hermetically covered with a (likely) vinyl or plastic type cover
(c) pool cover fastened to pool patio stone edging with herculian supports
(d) rain water accumulates on top of pool cover, this is not considered as "ground surface water"
(e) pool cover fasteners are stronger than the laid patio stone edging
(f) pool cover fasteners, due to weight of accumulated rain water on the pool cover - pull the pool patio stone edging up in some areas - and those pieces of pulled patio stone edging catapult into the pool
(g) the catapulting patio stone edging causes a hole in the pool bottom
(h) the accumulated water on the previously hermetically sealed pool cover - empties to the pool bottom and leaks out the hole caused by the patio stone edging
(i) pool "floats up"
(j) as Mikey then says, "causing all the aforementioned damages in the previous scenario"; i.e. pool, patio, attached structure, dwelling.
Wow, I've seen a moose in a pool that kicked the hell out of it, and I've seen a car in a pool that wrecked the pool; both causing the accidental escape of pool water in those inground pools; but those pools never "floated up", likely because there was sufficient weight or pressure opposing such upward force.
Anyway, regarding the damages in (j) above, relating to an HO3, we do have an "occurrence" and we do have "property damage", all at the "insured location"; and all of the damage to items in Coverage A & B, other than the treated pool water as Bill mentioned that was not in the original scenario.
It would seem at first glance that the cause would be due to "pressure or weight of water" on the pool cover, and people may migrate to exclusion (2b) in Section I - Perils Insured Against; that would seem to eliminate any coverage, ".... to a .... patio or swimming pool ....".
However, the pressure or weight of water was on the pool cover, not directly a pressure or weight of water in or on the empty pool. The noted exclusion does not go on to say, ".... to a .... swimming pool" and any attached equipment; it just says swimming pool.
I don't see any "flood" or ground "surface water" by definition, and in looking at Section I - Exclusions, I don't see anything in the "Water Damage meaning" that is applicable to this scenario.
Therefore, I would tend to say that the pressure or weight of water on a pool cover that was fastened to the patio stone edging, that caused some of that patio stone edging to fall into the empty pool releasing the water on the hermetically sealed pool cover and causing a hole in the bottom of the empty pool that allowed the pool cover water to leak out of the empty pool, then causing the rest of the scenario to occur; is not an excluded loss, ".... to a .... patio or swimming pool ....", nor to the attached structure and the dwelling.
With Bill's additional twist regarding the pool containing treated water in this scenario as a "piece" of personal property, Coverage C named peril #10 Falling object - of the patio stone edging into the pool causing the escape of the treated pool water, would provide coverage for that portion.
I don't doubt there is or would be "doubters" to this coverage conclusion. Presenting this in detail and in sequence, I think is the key to selling it to a carrier.
I'm still puzzled by the "floating up" of the pool, but there is no evidence of "flood" or "surface water" as normally interpreted, in this scenario. |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 13:04:46
|
Heck, you explained that so that even I understood your conclusions and I have to agree. Looking at the language 'literally' and applying them to the facts, without any other written policy interpretations, I would pay the man! Thanks for pushing me thru the door Clayton. I was stuck.
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 16:25:26
|
Ok, I'm glad to see the responses from those who are incorrectly espousing coverage, but, I beg to disagree with all of you on your premature and erroneous coverage conclusions.
Let's look a little more closely and carefully at your claims logic, then compare it with everything the HO-3 policy says, and see if your conclusion doesn't equate to both a result which I don't think you intended and was arrived at by a failure to completely examine and digest the policy more thoroughly.
To me, there is nothing ambiguous about the policy language if one makes themselves aware of all the applicable portions of the policy thereof, nor is this a "gray area" coverage claim.
You may not arrive at that conclusion by following my reasoning, but I honestly think if you properly read and follow the clear language of the HO-3 policy, you cannot arrive at any other conclusion, that this is a non-covered loss scenario.
If you suggest, that the pool cover is by way of attachment not a part of the swimming pool, then it must, by attachment, be then a part of the patio. In which case, it would also preclude coverage by way of the same exclusion as if it were part of the swimming pool.
Or, you could argue that the swimming pool cover is personal property (Coverage C item) in which case, there would be no Coverage C Named Peril triggering causation, as will be shown below, which could trigger coverage for Coverage A and Coverage B items as a "covered" ENSUING LOSS.
Were there some covered loss to a risk with damages to property covered under Coverages A, B and C, and if the loss were such that all of the Coverage C limits had been exhausted for other personal property before contemplation and inclusion of the pool cover, the pool cover could be covered under Coverage B as 'part' of the swimming pool. If the pool cover were laying out in the backyard unattached when it was damaged by a covered peril, in my opinion, it would only be treated as a Coverage C item. Attachment is the key to a determination of whether the pool cover is Coverage B or Coverage C.
If your argument was accepted that pressure or weight of water on the pool cover alone can trigger coverage without regard to exclusions clearly intended to preclude coverage otherwise, your argument would have the effect of allowing insureds to bypass important and necessary exclusions. Here is just one example of the precedent your argument could have:
An insured, without NFIP flood coverage, aware that flood conditions are imminent in the area of his risk, 'attaches' swimming pool covers adjacent to/over/around/in front of all ground level entryways into a risk (where flood waters might otherwise be expected to enter) and then argues that the pressure and weight of water on and against the pool cover allowed water entry into the risk, and that what would otherwise be considered flood damage is now FIRST due to pressure and weight of water on and/or against the pool cover, with general conditions of flooding as an "ensuing loss."
Assuming further, that the damages in AllCatMan's scenario were confined completely and solely to the swimming pool cover, there is no Coverage C Named Peril which applies which would extend coverage and indemnity for just the swimming pool cover in the circumstances which AllCatMan describes.
An additional flaw in the argument for coverage position, under AllCatMan's scenario, is the failure to recall that a 'triggering event' initiated by a Coverage C item, must first of course, be caused by one of the Named Perils for Coverage C, AND such event MUST also cause DAMAGE to the Coverage C item as a precursor to establishing coverage for ensuing damages which would rely on Coverage C perils (solely) for causation. Otherwise, the argument would serve as nothing more than an avenue to facilitate a bypass around otherwise sound policy exclusions under Coverages A and B.
Mere exposure of a Coverage C item to a Coverage C peril, without attendant damage to the Coverage C item, cannot trigger additional ensuing damages not covered and thus make them covered (by way of Coverage C perils).
If anyone disagrees with this position, please respond and elaborate where and how you would find coverage under the Coverage C Named Perils.
Therefore, if we are going to find any coverage for the damages as outlined under AllCatMan's scenario, then it is imperative that we do so by looking only at the coverages available under Coverage A (and Coverage B) subject to all of the exclusions to those same Coverages for A and B.
Remember now, if you consider the swimming pool cover as Personal Property (Coverage C) there is NO COVERAGE from a Coverage C Named Peril, and our discussion could end here.
So now, let's go back and see what the Coverage A (and Coverage B) exclusions say:
Coverage A policy language says: We do not insure, however, for loss:
2. Caused by:
b. ....weight of water or ice, whether driven by wind or not, to a:
(1) Fence, pavement, patio, or swimming pool
So, we now know, from our proper reading of the policy, that damage from weight of water is NOT COVERED if it damages the SWIMMING POOL (OR the patio),
AND,
we learned earlier, that damages from weight of water on Coverage C items is also NOT COVERED, as weight of water is not a Coverage C Named Peril.
Now where Clayton is trying to hang his hat, I think, in finding coverage, is by limiting himself to looking for coverage solely under the Coverage A language on "Collapse."
Before we go forward, lest anyone forget, collapse IS NOT a peril.
Now Clayton's argument fails in his seeking coverage, by way of the collapse provisions, by arriving at an erroneous conclusion from a failure to consider the entirety of the policy language under the Collapse provisions, which I would point out as follows:
If you assume that the patio edging being pulled away from the patio is the 'triggering causation', then first of all that pulling away is NOT COVERED due to the exclusion above ("We no not insure however for loss caused by: .....weight of water to a patio or swimming pool).
If you then desperately argue that the pulling of the edging stone away constitutes a "collapse" in a futile search for coverage, then you must further be guided by the 'big fat' EXCLUSION [Emphasis Mine] to the 'Collapse' provisions, which states that "Loss to a(n) patio....swimming pool is NOT INCLUDED.....UNLESS the loss is a direct result of the COLLAPSE of a BUILDING."
To sum up the policy interpretation as I clearly see it, there is no coverage for a loss ENSUING from a NON-COVERED event or PROXIMATE CAUSATION damage from a NON-COVERED event.
There is no coverage for the swimming pool cover or edging stone under Coverage B due to Coverage B Exclusions.
There is no coverage for the swimming pool cover under Coverage C due to the lack of damage from a Coverage C Named Peril.
And, there is no coverage to either the swimming pool or the swimming pool cover under the Collapse Provisions of the HO-3 Policy due to the quite specific exclusions for swimming pools and patios which I just shared.
Finally, this case rests additionally, on it's failure to meet what the courts have labelled the "But For Test".
"But for" a non-covered peril and/or non-covered triggering of events, there would not have been the sytematic chain of events (proximate causation) leading to other ensuing (non-covered) damages.
Now for those who jumped in head first without more carefully reading and digesting the HO-3 policy, what say Ye?
(BTW: I was aware and do agree with Bill Cook that the water in the pool as well as pool chemicals are indeed personal property covered under Coverage C as long as the damages are from a covered peril to either Coverage B property (thus allowing the leak or loss) or a Coverage C peril which somehow damaged the personal property.) |
Edited by - JimF on 06/07/2003 08:19:13 |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 17:16:17
|
I don't understand water leaking out of a pool with enough pressure form the outside to float it,pools do not drain out if there is an outside pressure. The hole must have been after the fact or the crack was there before the fact and the pool was empty, it would have to be a slow leak.
I had a pool with a crack, and when the water table came up water would run in not out until I got it repaired. After I repaired it, I kept it full so I never had the floating problem. My pool was twenty feet from a stream and the bottom was about four feet below the stream bed.
I can see where you get the coverage on the weight of the water as the cause of damage to the structure and also the personal property damage. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 17:22:56
|
Newt, if the triggering event is non-covered, then all ensuing damages are also non-covered.
So please tell me what COVERED "triggering event" you think caused the intial action which then resulted in damages to the building and personal property?
If the initial triggering event is not covered, then neither is the ensuing damage to the building nor to the personal property.
And as I suggest above, a complete reading and understanding of the HO-3 policy can lead you to no other conclusion than that this is a non-covered loss to the building, the swimming pool, the patio decking, and the personal property (swimming pool cover, water and chemicals).
Re-read the policy. You're not 'getting it' yet!
It really is quite clear once you really understand what the policy says about the issues here. |
Edited by - JimF on 06/06/2003 20:11:57 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Floating Pool
Forum Locked
