| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2003 : 12:08:59
|
Perhaps because it is a Friday the Thirteenth or simply a desire to see if I can't make the AllCatMan claims scenario understandable or simply because I sometimes enjoy taking the contrarian position in playing the Devil's advocate, but I want to change AllCatMan's scenario, ever so slightly, and see what happens.
Assume that the Insured, Mr. Louganis, decides to open his pool for his family and his friends use, and he thus removes the swimming pool cover, folds it neatly and then stores it away in his garage for the summer.
The next day, a rainstorm comes along, and he discovers that all of the other events have occurred which AllCatMan describes: the edging stone catapaults into the pool, damaging the concrete bottom, creating an opening, allowing the pool water to drain, and then the high water table causes the pool to float, which in turn damages the screened enclosure and stucco soffits on the adjoining porch.
Is there now coverage for this loss under the HO-3 policy, without having the swimming pool cover as a distraction or obstacle to policy interpretation?
Why or why not?
I'll share my own take on coverage under this new scenario after hearing from some of you. |
Edited by - JimF on 06/13/2003 12:14:02 |
 |
|
|
bryan newell
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 17:21:24
|
Jim F,
I am aware of the policy & I know that the subsequent interior damage would be covered, even though faulty practices were used. In a previous thread you said that damage caused by faulty construction was not covered, but when you answered my question you said it was.... I guess this is as clearly stated as the power surge to the AC unit that was so hotly debted a while back. I have yet to discuss the AC issue with a Property Manager who would not pay for it. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 18:02:05
|
Bryan,
Without researching what I said or may have said under another thread, I can only comment on any discrepancy, by saying the following, which in effect, is a reflection of what the HO-3 policy says:
The HO-3 policy says under:
Section I - EXCLUSIONS
2. We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by ANY of the following. HOWEVER, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B NOT EXCLUDED OR EXCEPTED in this policy IS COVERED.
c. Faulty, inadequate or defective:
(2) Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction;
(3) Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or....
Further, the policy under the "Collapse Provisions" says the following which also deals with this issue to some extent:
ADDITIONAL COVERAGES
8. Collapse. We insure for direct physical loss to covered property involving collapse of a building caused ONLY by one or more of the following:
f. Use of defective material or methods in construction, remodeling or renovation IF the collapse occurs DURING the COURSE of the CONSTRUCTION, REMODELING OR RENOVATION.
I would hasten to add, that when an insurance carrier makes a claims indemnity payment for losses involving construction defects, material defects, and installation defects, that carrier has the right to SUBORDINATE against the guilty and/or negligent party and recover the indemnity payments made. Payment by the carrier for the defective item itself is not covered (generally).
With regard to your suggestion Bryan, that I may have spoken or seemed to have spoken out of both sides of my mouth in promoting two different answers to the same or similar claims scenarios, without knowing which specific claims situation you are referring to and not knowing which thread you may be referring to, it is not possible for me to clarify what I may have said elsewhere. It could have been a mistake on my part or it may be explainable relative to other exclusions or circumstances which are created at times by the complexities of the policy. If you will point out the specifics of the apparent discrepancy, I would be happy to address it, even if it means an admission of error on my part. The application of what may seem simple within the policy language can become complex and not so simple in what is an almost identical scenario where only the very slightest change in circumstances or even the presence of just one more or one less "word" can change the outcome from the other scenario.
|
Edited by - JimF on 06/14/2003 06:30:56 |
|
|
|
AllCatMan
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 22:09:55
|
WHY IS IT SO HARD TO SEE,THE POOL COVER IS "B" COVERAGE....IT IS A COVER...LIKE A PATIO COVER...CARPORT COVER....IT IS A COVER!!!! IT IS COVERED BY THE POLICY,AS WOULD A FIBERGLASS PATIO COVER THAT FELL DUE TO THE WEIGHT OF RAIN, SNOW, OR ICE AND CAUSED DAMAGES, THAT WOULD ALSO BE COVERED...WHY MUST YOU MAKE THIS HARDER THAN IT HAS TO BE .... IT IS QUITE SIMPLE.
JIM,
GIVEN THE SCENERIO OF THE DAMAGES RESULTING FROM A PATIO COVER THAT HAD FALLEN DUE TO THE WEIGHT OF SNOW WOULD YOU DENY COVERAGE?
PERHAPSE IT TAKES A 'NIMWIT',SUCH AS I,TO NOT OVER ADJUST OR OVER THINK OR OVER READ OR OVER INTERPRETE(SP) THE POLICY. NOT ALL OF US ARE PRIVY TO YOUR VAST KNOWLEDGE OF EVERY CONCIVIBLE SUBJECT KNOWN TO MANKIND, FORGIVE US PLEASE, BUT DO NOT, DO NOT, BELITTLE US, ANY OF US, FOR QUESTIONING WHY,WHERE,OR HOW THINGS ARE.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS IN THE SPIRIT IT IS INTENDED, YOU DO HAVE A KEEN UNDERSTANDING OF POLICY, IT IS QUITE CLEAR, BUT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE PUT DOWN A POSTER HERE,ME FOR ONE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS FORUM IS FOR US,ALL OF US, TO POST QUESTIONS, AND COMMENTS WITH OUT THE FEAR THAT SOMEONE SO MIGHTY WILL TRY TO SHOW HIS KNOWLEGE WHILE MAKEING US LOOK LIKE FOOLS.
I AM QUITE SURE MANY DO NOT POST SERIOUS QUESTIONS HERE FOR THAT VERY REASON.
THANKS. |
Join in the Chat Room nightly 7cst/8est. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 22:56:13
|
Ok, let's see if we can straighten out this mess you seem to think we're in, AllCatMan.
Now you say that the swimming pool cover is a Coverage B item? Right?
Ok, let's suppose the following claims scenario: Mr. Louganis, the Insured, runs down to the local swimming pool supply company in December and buys a new swimming pool cover for $650.00, and then takes it home and stores it in his garage, to use when the weather turns warm in May. In March, while Mr. Louganis is out for the evening, a thief breaks into his garage and steals a lawnmower, bicycle and the swimming pool cover. Would you recommend to the carrier that they pay the $650.00 for the swimming pool cover under Coverage B? Why or why not?
Secondly, you will note that weight of ice, snow and sleet is a covered cause of loss under Coverage C under the HO-3. Weight of rain is not covered as a Cause of Loss under Coverage C.
In response to your question regarding a collapse of a patio cover due to weight of ice and snow, yes, it would be a covered cause of loss.
If, as you argue, the swimming pool cover is Coverage B, and is like a patio cover and carport cover, then if you will return to the HO-3 policy and read it, you will discover that weight of rain which collects on a roof is an exclusion under the Collapse Provisions to swimming pools specifically, which require the collapse of a building to extend coverage.
I still suggest, that any tangible property item (such as a swimming pool cover) not otherwise excluded from coverage under the HO-3 policy, falls into one (or more) of the three rather distinct but neat categories of either Coverage A - Building, Coverage B - Other Structures, or Coverage C - Personal Property, and for you to have argued or suggested otherwise was and is simply absurd.
The swimming pool cover can be treated as EITHER a Coverage B or a Coverage C item, depending of whether it is attached.
I apologize for overkill in using the word nitwit. My intent was to label the statement you had made as absurd and was not meant as a label for you personally. And heck, absurd or ridiculous statements come out of my own mouth at times too, and I appreciate it when others bring those to my attention, and set me straight. :>)
PS: I really can understand why you're a little pissed at me, but you don't have to SHOUT at everyone else by USING ALL CAPS.
Just out of curiosity AllCatMan, would you say that a patio cover is part of a patio? Yes or No?
|
Edited by - JimF on 06/14/2003 07:15:38 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2003 : 09:28:10
|
Mikey, lets say this Louganis fellow did a run to the Home Depot and brought home and stored in his garage, materials and supplies that would be used to construct or alter his dwelling and other structures on the residence premises. The Louganis chap filled his garage with the aforementioned materials and supplies, with the goal to put a cover over his pool and secure that cover to his patio stone edging, and erect a separate screened enclosure attached to his dwelling.
If all that is stolen from the garage, the carrier is looking at a Coverage A loss, including the "pool cover" itself which likely came packaged in a box, no different than some siding or flooring materials and supplies that come boxed at the point of sale. |
Edited by - CCarr on 06/14/2003 09:31:31 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2003 : 10:24:22
|
Clayton is correct that coverage for building materials is included under Coverage A of the HO-3 as the following HO-3 Policy language relates:
Coverage A - DWELLING
We cover:
2. Materials and supplies located on or next to the "residence premises" used to construct, alter or repair the dwelling or other structures on the "residence premises."
I do not think however, that if Louganis has merely bought a replacement swimming pool cover or stored his old one in the garage for the summer, that that scenario rises to meeting the policy standard above of "construct, alter or repair" and most adjusters handling a theft loss which included the items I initially outlined in a theft scenario would and should recommend payment for the swimming pool cover as Personal Property Coverage C, or if attached to the pool, as a Coverage B item.
Interstingly, Clayton now suggests, by the inherent nature of his argument in his most recent post, that the swimming pool cover is in fact part of EITHER the swimming pool and/or some "other structure." |
Edited by - JimF on 06/14/2003 10:30:04 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2003 : 11:47:27
|
The post statement that I previously responded to was, ".... in December .... buys a new swimming pool cover .... stores in garage, to use when ....".
I chose to clarify my answer with, ".... that would be used to construct or alter ....".
So what, what does it matter, if it is a 'replacement' (inserted word) pool cover, to my previous post?
"Alter" is defined as, "make or become different; change".
Louganis storing a pool cover in his garage with the intent to install it whether for the first time or as a replacement, the pool cover is still "materials and supplies .... used to construct or alter ....".
That is no different than some new siding, flooring, or decking materials and supplies, intended to replace other siding or existing decking or flooring.
All of the above come under Coverage A.
I would also suggest that opinion be limited to encompass that of the poster only, or that of specifically referenced material; and that an end be brought to such inclusions as - ".... most adjusters ... would ....". The inference otherwise, is to suggest that the majority of adjusters automatically by stated inclusion agree with the stated opinion, when the inclusion phrase is added. That is not necessarily the case, nor should it be inferred. |
Edited by - CCarr on 06/14/2003 14:17:51 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2003 : 09:56:50
|
To clear up any confusion, my comments regarding how a theft loss to a residential risk which consisted solely of "lawnmower, bicycle and the swimming pool cover" would be reported in the United States read "most adjusters....would and should recommend payment for the swimming pool cover as Personal Property Coverage C, or if attached to the pool, as a Coverage B item."
That sentence should have read most adjusters in the United States, WOULD, SHOULD AND DO recommend payment for the swimming pool cover as Personal Property Coverage C, or if attached to the pool, as a Coverage B item. (I might also have added all the more so when said pool cover is stored in a garage and is damaged by theft).
Why else are swimming pool covers shown or showing under the many contents depreciation guides from various and sundry insurance carriers here in America?
The chances that a reasonable adjuster, local building inspector, claims manager or court in America would consider a swimming pool cover as a Coverage A item is slim and none, and slim just left the building.
I have no idea how Mr. Carr, as a former supervisor and/or manager in a claims department in an insurance carrier in Canada has such vast knowledge of the American claims reporting practices, the application and interpretation of the HO-3 (04 91) policy, and our American case law. Even more amazing in that he only has a copy of the US HO-3 (04 91), which I faxed to him only a year ago when he requested such due to not having a copy. It is to the point now, that if I posted here that the world was round, he would argue it flat.
I stand by my previous statements regarding the swimming pool cover being a Coverage C item, except when it is attached to the pool, at such time when it can also be considered a Coverage A item. I would resort to relying on Coverage A for a swimming pool cover only if and when I had exhausted all of the Coverage C and Coverage B limits, and had some limit available under Coverage A.
Hope this clears any confusion earlier comments may have caused. |
Edited by - JimF on 06/15/2003 10:07:28 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2003 : 11:01:52
|
Wow Flynt, you are at your surly best today, a common and distasteful stance for you when people do not line up behind you in resounding agreement of anything you might have to say.
However, aside from that, your very weak inclusion of Coverage A cover for the pool cover sitting in the garage, as noted in your last sentence of your 2nd last paragraph, based on previous posts on 6/14 of 09.28, 10.24 & 11.47; is a cowardly way to admit that the scenario relative to "materials and supplies" as covered under "Dwelling" is correct. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2003 : 11:30:44
|
Surly. No. Not at all.
Mr. Louganis decides to go buy a new swimming pool cover. He takes the old swimming pool cover and throws it in the back of his pick-up truck and runs down to the local swimming pool supply company. (He called the two largest home building supplies companies in America to try and locate a swimming pool cover, but discovered they don't carry them. Imagine that!)
Before he arrives at the pool supply company, he sees his best friend and golfing buddy Ralph, who talks him into stopping off at their neighborhood bar for a couple of cold ones before he goes shopping. While in the bar drinking, an unknown thief steals his pool cover from the back of his pick up truck, which Louganis discovers when he leaves the bar.
Loganis calls the local police, who files a police report, and calls his agent the next day to report the loss.
Is there coverage for the theft of the swimming pool cover and if so, under what policy coverage and why?
And I will ask again, why does my old State Farm, old GAB and old Farmer's Contents depreciation schedules all address swimming pool covers as a contents item?
Call your local building inspection department tomorrow morning and tell them you want to make an alteration to your home and ask them what you need to do. After they tell you that alterations to houses in most localities in America require a building or remodeling permit. Then ask them if they consider putting on or taking off a swimming pool cover an alteration, and whether you need a permit for such alteration.
My advice to adjusters here, is to use some good old fashioned common sense, Carr's advice on how things are done in Canada notwithstanding.
A swimming pool cover is no different than a barbecue grill cover, or an automobile cover. Plain and simply, they all are contents items first and foremost, and I will concede, that in a pinch, coverage for swimming pool cover can be found and accepted by an insurance carrier as a Coverage B item if it is attached, and only under the most extreme situation where all other coverages were exhausted, would most if any insurance carriers allow coverage for such swimming pool cover as a Coverage A item.
There may be more than one way so skin this cat. I'm just trying to share with this audience, the right way.
|
Edited by - Linda on 06/19/2003 13:12:08 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2003 : 11:41:24
|
The former post has absolutely nothing to do with the scenario presented in 6/14 posts of 09.28, 10.24, or 11.47 which were all relative to what is covered under Coverage A (in that scenario) relative to "materials and supplies .... used to construct or alter ....".
By edit, I must add that when I originally made this post, I had not seen Mr. Flynt's additions by edit; particularly the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs and the last two.
My how one's 'stock' can quickly fall, with the flick and drip from a poisonous forked tongue. It was only 6 days ago, on 6/9 @ 08.39, that I was worth a nickel; to now fall to a worthless blithering idiot - and a Canadian one no less - via a 6/15 post @ 11.30.
It would be easy for me to detail how silly you sound with such ignorant remarks, however it would surely be a wasted effort; suffice to say you make a fool of yourself with such callous personal attacks. |
Edited by - CCarr on 06/15/2003 16:02:19 |
|
|
|
LAW1526
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2003 : 12:06:00
|
Jim and Clayton, you have me questing myself if I paid a claim correctly.
I recently had a spa cover damaged by flying debris during a windstorm. The spa is set on grade incorporated into the back yard concrete patio. The spa cover is attached to the siding of the spa with snaps. I paid for the replacement of the spa cover under Coverage C (personal property). At the time I viewed the spa much like patio furniture.
Now after reading the HO3 policy I see now, I should have paid the claim under Coverage B-Other Structures. The spa is a structure and is separated form the main structure by clear space. The spa cover was attached to the spa, therefore declaring it part of Coverage B-Other Structures.
What is the definition of attached in accordance to policy? The dictionary is not providing me with clear enough definition for this issue.
The reason I asks this question is for example, if you have a concrete patio that is separated from the structure with an expansion joint (3/4” felt pad) not doweled (attached) to the existing concrete steps or foundation off a 6’ to 8’ exterior patio door, but the remainder of the patio is separated from the structure by 2 feet is the concrete patio Coverage A or Coverage B?
In my opinion the expansion joint does not qualify as clear space, therefore qualifying the concrete patio as attached to the structure. Technically the concrete patio is not attached to the existing foundation because it is not doweled to the existing structure. Many patios are poured with out doweling them to the existing footing or concrete steps attaching them to the structure. Most all driveways are doweled to the garage footing making the concrete driveway attached to the structure.
Please give me your thoughts on this.
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2003 : 12:15:47
|
Lenny, in my opinion, you handled the claim correctly.
The spa cover is first and foremost a personal property item. So, in fact, are many spas as long as the ownership intent would be to take the spa with that owner should they sell their home and move as well as the nature of whether the attachement to real estate (Coverage A or B) was permanent or temporary. (Although from reading the description of the spa you handled, it seems clear to be a Coverage B item).
The same would hold true for a barbecue grill cover, in that it would be considered a personal property (Coverage C) item and should be handled and reported by the adjuster as such when encountered in a loss.
Personal property items generally have the main characteristic of transportability and being more transient by nature.
Buildings and other structures, by comparison, by their very nature are considered much more characteristic of having more permanent and immovable qualities.
I do concede and suggest, that a spa cover or a swimming pool cover CAN BE covered under Coverage B when or if attached.
And as I have said in a post heretofore, I would also agree and concede that a swimming pool cover (or spa cover) would likely be acceptable to an insurance carrier under the premise that Clayton argues, in finding coverage under building materials or supplies. It is a stretch in words, meaning and intent, but one a carrier would prefer paying under Coverage A than in expending valuable claims department dollars in litigation over such a relatively small amount of money.
That's my opinion, and I base my opinion on readings from the texts of AICPCU programs (CPCU, AAI and AIC), CIC educational program, and other American insurance resources. |
Edited by - JimF on 06/15/2003 13:42:26 |
|
|
|
yumadj
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2003 : 17:58:48
|
| Could this be a flood issue with ground table rising and popping the pool? The first Liberty Ships in WW II were built of Concrete..they were large freighters and troop carriers. |
Jeff Finley |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Floating Pool
Forum Locked
