In fact it may be extremely difficult for an insured to “prove” which damages were sustained pre flood surge. IMO we all pay for that coverage, therefore, it’s up to the insurers to find a way to define a process to be specified in their policies that will allow all parties to understand, and follow a process aimed at achieving fair compensation. It’s got to be most difficult if a home is later swept away with or without Flood insurance. In the other extreme where the house is still standing, it seems to me we should expect that the damage below the high water mark inside will
be denied by the HO, and should be covered by Flood if any. And the damage above the water mark is the HO insurer’s if it occurred due to wind, and water entering through wind caused openings in the structure. Maybe this is overly simplified, but it makes sense to me.
I have a big problem with concurrent causation exclusions if they fail to separate and apportion damages.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
How do you prove damages to wind-blown roof which was later swept away by surge/flood?
In fact it may be extremely difficult for an insured to “prove” which damages were sustained pre flood surge. IMO we all pay for that coverage, therefore, it’s up to the insurers to find a way to define a process to be specified in their policies that will allow all parties to understand, and follow a process aimed at achieving fair compensation. It’s got to be most difficult if a home is later swept away with or without Flood insurance. In the other extreme where the house is still standing, it seems to me we should expect that the damage below the high water mark inside will
be denied by the HO, and should be covered by Flood if any. And the damage above the water mark is the HO insurer’s if it occurred due to wind, and water entering through wind caused openings in the structure. Maybe this is overly simplified, but it makes sense to me.
I have a big problem with concurrent causation exclusions if they fail to separate and apportion damages.