Causation Disputes

Lately it seems that insurance companies have been taking issue with losses by asserting a difference of opinion as to causation. For example, take an insured who reports wind damage to their home. The insurance company hires an “expert” to examine the home. This “expert” (I put “expert” in quotation marks because I find that many of them have a predetermined opinion as to causation) comes out and following a casual inspection of the property opines that the home suffers from a variety of ills relating to deferred maintenance or some such argument that is similar in nature.

The insurance company in turn takes exception to the claim citing the wear and tear, deterioration, inherent vice and latent defect exclusions or the improper maintenance language under the concurrent causation section of the policy. The insured is left blinking like the proverbial deer in the headlights.

Understand this is little more than a tactic. Most houses suffer from maintenance related damages. Whether it’s a broken roof tile from someone walking on the roof or a pipe under the sink that leaked for a few days before anyone noticed it, every house has some blemish, some flaw. The question here is whether the maintenance is responsible for the loss or some casualty is responsible such as the wind in our example.

Insurance policies are unilateral contracts between the policyholder and the insurance company. The policyholder is given the option of accepting the policy as written or going somewhere else. Because it is a unilateral contract any ambiguity is automatically decided in favor of the policyholder. Unfortunately, many insurance companies are using “experts” to try and remove ambiguity from the claim adjustment process.

Now in our example, even though the house may suffer from wear and tear or deterioration or latent defects etc… when those conditions serve to weaken the structure and make it more susceptible to wind, the proximate cause of the loss becomes wind not wear and tear and the loss should be covered. In reaching this conclusion I ask myself a simple question: did the loss occur absent the casualty. If the answer yes, then wear and tear may be responsible. If the answer is no, then the casualty (in our example wind) is responsible and the merits of the claim should be considered in the context of the cause of loss.

A repositioning of the loss as wear and tear is improper and you should take a stand against the company when they attempt to do this.