The assertion that ALL mold is due to maintenance is a pure “red herring” by the insurance companies. I agree that mold that can be directly attributed to a lack of maintenance should be excluded, just as it always has been. However, mold that is directly ensuing from a “cover cause of loss” has always been covered and should remain covered. The Departments of Insurance that allow the insurer to limit or escape their obligations to indemnity an insured for all damages due to a fire or any covered cause of loss, including ensuing mold from fire suppression efforts should be sued directly by the consumer for failing to uphold the public trust and reasonable expectations. Ask yourself, what will the insurer say when the public fully understands the mold exclusion and begins to immediately rip out ALL possible wet materials under the “protection of property” clause rather than attempting to dry the materials and run the risk of facing damages that the insurer will not indemnify for? If the insurer holds that the insured MUST attempt to mitigate the loss, is the insured within their rights to bulldoze the property for fear of a significant mold infestation? I will tell ALL of my clients to immediately remove any materilas that are even subject to being wet due to a covered cause of loss and see any insurer that denies indemnity in court!
Insurance companies should be permitted to exclude mold- mold is the result of poor maintenance in most cases and formation is preventable. On an actuarial basis, no one can forecast a rate that could fund the exposure.
Mold is not always a condition of poor maintenance, such as a small pipe drip in an interior wall that can not be seen, once discovered the home owner is left without coverage for the mold remediation, even though the problem was through no fault of the owner. The exclusions if permitted should not be all encompassing. This type of situation happens often and only rarely is coverage provided.
I checked with the Conneticut Senate today (3/15) regarding the status of this bill and was informed it died as no action was taken. Therefore, the current ISO Guidelines ($10K cap on covered perils)still take precedence.
Hello,
Insurance industry has known about mycotoxins and health related issues.
The bible Quotes mold in homes ..
Homeowners buy insurance to cover losses.. Insurance industry has obligation to make whole after any mold event.
certain Mold is very dangerous and insurance should be held accountable for any and all negligence in all mold related cases.
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.
The assertion that ALL mold is due to maintenance is a pure “red herring” by the insurance companies. I agree that mold that can be directly attributed to a lack of maintenance should be excluded, just as it always has been. However, mold that is directly ensuing from a “cover cause of loss” has always been covered and should remain covered. The Departments of Insurance that allow the insurer to limit or escape their obligations to indemnity an insured for all damages due to a fire or any covered cause of loss, including ensuing mold from fire suppression efforts should be sued directly by the consumer for failing to uphold the public trust and reasonable expectations. Ask yourself, what will the insurer say when the public fully understands the mold exclusion and begins to immediately rip out ALL possible wet materials under the “protection of property” clause rather than attempting to dry the materials and run the risk of facing damages that the insurer will not indemnify for? If the insurer holds that the insured MUST attempt to mitigate the loss, is the insured within their rights to bulldoze the property for fear of a significant mold infestation? I will tell ALL of my clients to immediately remove any materilas that are even subject to being wet due to a covered cause of loss and see any insurer that denies indemnity in court!
Insurance companies should be permitted to exclude mold- mold is the result of poor maintenance in most cases and formation is preventable. On an actuarial basis, no one can forecast a rate that could fund the exposure.
Mold is not always a condition of poor maintenance, such as a small pipe drip in an interior wall that can not be seen, once discovered the home owner is left without coverage for the mold remediation, even though the problem was through no fault of the owner. The exclusions if permitted should not be all encompassing. This type of situation happens often and only rarely is coverage provided.
I checked with the Conneticut Senate today (3/15) regarding the status of this bill and was informed it died as no action was taken. Therefore, the current ISO Guidelines ($10K cap on covered perils)still take precedence.
Can anyone tell me whether this bill passed or not?
Hello,
Insurance industry has known about mycotoxins and health related issues.
The bible Quotes mold in homes ..
Homeowners buy insurance to cover losses.. Insurance industry has obligation to make whole after any mold event.
certain Mold is very dangerous and insurance should be held accountable for any and all negligence in all mold related cases.