Updating fairness doctrine
Updating fairness doctrine - Free Online
Many blog posts have been devoted to showing just how much is excluded and limited in our insurance policies.
This is a case about a residence damaged during a terrible rainstorm when the east basement wall collapsed and fell into the basement.At a recent insurance conference, I heard a discussion in passing between industry folks about the trend of trying to kill the name “all-risk insurance policy.” The basic conversation was that we should stop using the all-risk language and use the form names more because the insinuation has been made that the policies labeled as all-risk get the reputation of being considered unlimited coverage and all-encompassing coverage that should apply regardless of the circumstances.Now, for the record, we know that policies of insurance are written by insurance companies and when you read a policy, whether it is a named-peril or an all-risk policy, pages of text are devoted to making sure policyholders are prohibited from confusing an insurance policy with a warranty.It does not take a insurance guru to understand that policies of insurance are filled with exclusions and limitations.How those exclusions and limitations apply matters and the right consideration needs to be given when a policy has language that states: “coverage for damage of direct physical loss is covered unless excluded” or “coverage exists against all risks of physical loss unless otherwise excluded or limited” or something similar.The home had structural damage and damage to the contents on this lowest level.
It is important to know for the purposes of this case that the policy discussed collapse in the contract.
It listed that collapse is covered but collapse did not cover settling, cracking, shrinkage, bulging or expansion.
This is important to note because many policies now further limit or exclude collapse damage.
Again, another example of how insurance companies can strip away coverage once thought to be the norm.
In addition, Peril 15 in this policy listed that accidental discharge, leakage or overflow of water or steam from within a plumbing system was also covered if it was not caused by or resulting from freezing .
The homeowners made a claim for the loss under their all-risk insurance policy and the insurance company denied the claim stating that the policy did not insure against loss caused by, resulting from, contributing to, or aggravated by flood, surface water, water that backs up from sewers and drains, water below the surface that exerts pressure, or anything to do with earth movement.