Some insurers’ policies add exclusions not contained in the ISO HO 2 and HO 3 policies. For example, a relatively common exclusion precludes coverage for loss resulting from an increase in hazard at the insured premises that is within the knowledge or control of an insured. A methamphetamine lab is an example of one extreme. Such activities are criminal in nature and involve the use of highly flammable and explosive chemicals. Failing to replace broken or nonfunctioning door locks is another example—failing to secure premises renders them more vulnerable to theft and vandalism losses. Under the law of most states, where an exclusion of this nature refers to knowledge or control of an insured, the knowledge or control of any insured will have the effect of defeating coverage for other insureds who did not have knowledge of or control over the increase in hazard that leads to loss. Water damage exclusions also vary from insurer to insurer. The ISO policies exclude coverage for sewer back-up losses. Some insurers’ water damage exclusions do not exclude coverage for sewer back-up losses. If your house is situated where it may be subject to such losses, this is an issue that is worth spending your time to inquire whether coverage is available from an insurer at a premium that fits your budget. Another point to consider when you are comparing policy forms from various insurers is to examine ensuing loss clauses that are part of exclusions. Ensuing loss clauses are exceptions to exclusions. Some ensuing loss clauses limit coverage to ensuing fire or explosion. Other ensuing loss clauses extend coverage to ensuing loss caused by any covered cause of loss. And, of course, there are examples between these two extremes.

Aucun commentaire