Wonder if I can use that for my old cat who tries his best to get to the door, but sometimes doesn’t make it. He has a “sudden and accidental discharge” quite often and the chemicals I use are ruining my carpet. He’s older than one of my children, so he’s really more family than pet. Hummmm????
Something stinks about this story and it is not the kid’s diaper. The insured failed to mitigate his damages and the “sudden and accidental discharge” would be bogus too.
Agree w/MB: this claim should never have been paid for two reasons. First, there is no coverage that applies. Second, the insured had a duty to mitigate known damages. I’m beginning to wonder if some lamebrain isn’t making this stuff up for kicks.
Maybe it’s me, but this is only a strange claim in that it was paid!
With five kids, we’ve had similar incidents that have required carpet cleaning and wall repainting (it’s amazing what kids can do with poo).
While the discharge on the carpet was unintended, that it can and does occur can hardly be described as being unexpected when a toddler is left unattended for what must have been an extended period by the husband since was tracked throughout the room.
The “ruining” of their carpet because of their failure to take reasonable steps to clean up the mess that their toddler left makes the damage that resulted in the carpet having to be replaced would only be “unexpected” by total idiots.
That it then required the replacement of all the first floor carpeting is a consequential loss that I’m at a loss to understand the necessity of.
yes, the claim should be denied because the insured failed to “take all reasonable steps to protect covered property at and after – – ”
as far as the cat, damage by domestic animals is excluded
if a company paid for new carpet every time a kid soiled it, they’d all be out of business
Agree w/ the comments for most policies, but I have an all-risk policy for not only my dwelling but my contents as well (won’t name the carrier but they offer coverage for higher cost homes). The claim would be covered given there is no applicable exclusion, and I would argue any failure to mitigate denial if the details were true, i.e the need to get to the airport. As long as the homeowner tried to clean it as soon as practical. A str perhaps, but when I was in claim, I was trained to “look” for coverage.
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.
What happened to the rest of the coverage grant?? “From within a heating or plumbing appliance?”
THAT was the strangest claim ever???
Wonder if I can use that for my old cat who tries his best to get to the door, but sometimes doesn’t make it. He has a “sudden and accidental discharge” quite often and the chemicals I use are ruining my carpet. He’s older than one of my children, so he’s really more family than pet. Hummmm????
Something stinks about this story and it is not the kid’s diaper. The insured failed to mitigate his damages and the “sudden and accidental discharge” would be bogus too.
Agree w/MB: this claim should never have been paid for two reasons. First, there is no coverage that applies. Second, the insured had a duty to mitigate known damages. I’m beginning to wonder if some lamebrain isn’t making this stuff up for kicks.
It’s not April first, is it?
W
Maybe it’s me, but this is only a strange claim in that it was paid!
With five kids, we’ve had similar incidents that have required carpet cleaning and wall repainting (it’s amazing what kids can do with poo).
While the discharge on the carpet was unintended, that it can and does occur can hardly be described as being unexpected when a toddler is left unattended for what must have been an extended period by the husband since was tracked throughout the room.
The “ruining” of their carpet because of their failure to take reasonable steps to clean up the mess that their toddler left makes the damage that resulted in the carpet having to be replaced would only be “unexpected” by total idiots.
That it then required the replacement of all the first floor carpeting is a consequential loss that I’m at a loss to understand the necessity of.
yes, the claim should be denied because the insured failed to “take all reasonable steps to protect covered property at and after – – ”
as far as the cat, damage by domestic animals is excluded
if a company paid for new carpet every time a kid soiled it, they’d all be out of business
Agree w/ the comments for most policies, but I have an all-risk policy for not only my dwelling but my contents as well (won’t name the carrier but they offer coverage for higher cost homes). The claim would be covered given there is no applicable exclusion, and I would argue any failure to mitigate denial if the details were true, i.e the need to get to the airport. As long as the homeowner tried to clean it as soon as practical. A str perhaps, but when I was in claim, I was trained to “look” for coverage.
I would have covered this as a “falling object” (plop, plop). See no reason not to cover it…