Last week I got this email:
“Does ISO HO Form 3, 05-11 provide coverage for damage by raccoons to the dwelling?”
At first, I figured the adjuster had cited a “vermin” exclusion to deny the claim, but then realized that this was the 2011 edition of the ISO HO 00 03 form that removed the word “vermin” and replaced it with an exclusion for infestation, secretion, etc. damage caused by an animal.
No, the adjuster agreed that the damage was covered since there was no “infestation” by multiple raccoons. However, he was declining to pay the cost to remove the raccoon from the attic.
However, if the adjuster admits that the damage is covered, then I would think this Additional Coverage would be triggered:
We will pay the reasonable cost incurred by you for the necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property that is damaged by a Peril Insured Against from further damage….
Removal of the raccoons is a necessary expense to protect covered property from further damage, so I would think that cost is covered as well. We’ll see how the adjuster responds to this.
Latest posts by Bill Wilson (see all)
- The Invisible But Potentially Catastrophic Homeowners Exclusion That’s Not An Exclusion - September 19, 2023
- Revisiting the Illusory Coverage Assertion Following a Claim Denial - September 19, 2023
- FREE Webcast: How to Survive and Thrive in a Hard Market - August 1, 2023