Did you know that some of your customers may be using a new phone app to rent their swimming pool to neighbors or others? Are they aware that they likely have no homeowners or umbrella coverage for damage to the pool or their now greatly increased liability exposure?

Sometimes an adjuster will deny a claim, citing a policy provision that clearly excludes coverage for the claim. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the claim isn’t covered. It’s possible that the claim is covered elsewhere in the policy. For example….

What happens when a claim is denied based on an exclusion in an open perils policy that doesn’t exist in a named perils policy that includes a named peril that would appear to cover the loss? In other words, is it possible that an ‘inferior’ named perils policy provides more coverage than an open perils policy