by simon.yung » Thu Apr 18, 2013 07:27 am
Weekly visits to house and to move things to another new house. House still has a lot of household items. There was a burst pipe at the water tank causing damage to ceiling flooring and cupboards etc. Insurers indicated that theloss would have been discovered if the Insured was at home. Can Insurers throw off claim based saying that the house is untenanted?
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 01:24 pm Post Subject:
What does the policy states? We certainly don't know.
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 08:15 am Post Subject:
Untenanted? Were you having a renters insurance?
Still, even if the tenant was present. Would have he been able to prevent the damage to ceiling flooring and cupboards etc? Certainly not. Still, the gap between visits matters.
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 09:07 am Post Subject:
Yes, insurance companies will not insure or cover losses in homes that have been unoccupied for more than 30 or 60 days, depending on the company and your state's laws.
An insured also has the responsibility to take reasonable action to limit further damage after a loss, such as emergency repairs, and notify the company immediately. It probably took several days at least for them to find it and do those things, so far more damage was allowed to occur than would have if they lived there. That's enough for the company to at least limit the claim to what reasonably would have been expected if they lived there.
Unfortunately, it sounds like there isn't much the insured can do in this case. They should get a vacant home policy on the house and take precaution against another loss to make sure this doesn't happen again.
Add your comment