If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegram)   Town of Warren, Mass. repeatedly flooded by burst beaver dam. Flood insurance won't pay thanks to "rodent damage" exclusion   (telegram.com) divider line 8
    More: Stupid, Warren, radiation damages, dams, board of health, North Street, floods, Spring Street, college town  
•       •       •

3546 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2013 at 11:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-29 11:10:25 AM  
6 votes:
The State's attitude really sucks.  Can't relocate beavers, presumably because you'd make them someone else's problem, so you have to kill them.  The problem's on State land but someone else has to pay to fix it.

And "rodent damage" is when a rodent comes onto your property and damages it, not when a flood caused by a rodent on someone else's property washes through yours.  Fark insurance companies.
2013-06-29 11:15:22 AM  
2 votes:
I work in insurance (the Umbrella Corporation) and I call shenanigans. First off, unless you live in a specifically declared flood plain, you don't need 'flood' insurance. This would be covered as water damage by your standard homeowners policy. If you live in a flood plain and didn't buy coverage, it's your own dumb fault.

Secondly, there's no way a carrier would try to deny this with a 'rodent damage' exclusion. That's for things like rats chewing and shiatting in your walls because you don't maintain your own property. With this being an off-premises issue, there'd be no way for the homeowners to anticipate or mitigate the issue. This is the type of loss a homeowners policy is designed to cover.

I doubt that whoever "told" them it wouldn't be covered works for their carrier. I'd guess it was a friend/family member who wasn't involved in the loss and doesn't know what they're talking about, or a dumbass agent who doesn't understand the policies they sell. And there are a lot of those agents out there...
2013-06-29 03:27:02 PM  
1 votes:

DonkeyDixon: I work in insurance (the Umbrella Corporation) and I call shenanigans. First off, unless you live in a specifically declared flood plain, you don't need 'flood' insurance. This would be covered as water damage by your standard homeowners policy. If you live in a flood plain and didn't buy coverage, it's your own dumb fault.

Secondly, there's no way a carrier would try to deny this with a 'rodent damage' exclusion. That's for things like rats chewing and shiatting in your walls because you don't maintain your own property. With this being an off-premises issue, there'd be no way for the homeowners to anticipate or mitigate the issue. This is the type of loss a homeowners policy is designed to cover.

I doubt that whoever "told" them it wouldn't be covered works for their carrier. I'd guess it was a friend/family member who wasn't involved in the loss and doesn't know what they're talking about, or a dumbass agent who doesn't understand the policies they sell. And there are a lot of those agents out there...


I just had USAA deny me some repairs from a tornado with hail because in the adjuster's opinion, some of the damage might have been caused by hail prior to the May 31 tornadic storms (and how, exactly, does that matter when the house is still insured with USAA and has been for years? Fix the farking damage, you idiots).

So while YOUR company might not deny a claim based on sketchy reasoning, in my long experience with insurance companies, they will do just about anything to find a way to deny claims or portions of claims. When a drunk driver hit me six years ago, even though the police report clearly stated it was her fault for driving the wrong way on the freeway and there was no way the wreck could have been avoided, my insurance company tried to blame my ex-husband, who was driving our car, and said (on a recorded line) that it would have been better if I had been killed in the wreck because it would have been cheaper--that was also a large, national insurance company.

And what Bill the Cat said about the need for flood insurance is spot on. I've always carried it, even though I've never lived on/near the water since I was old enough to require home insurance. Why? Because my realtor (a close friend of the family) told me that without it, I'd be screwed for water damage in the event of heavy rains, etc.
2013-06-29 03:13:31 PM  
1 votes:

DonkeyDixon: I work in insurance (the Umbrella Corporation) and I call shenanigans. First off, unless you live in a specifically declared flood plain, you don't need 'flood' insurance. This would be covered as water damage by your standard homeowners policy. If you live in a flood plain and didn't buy coverage, it's your own dumb fault.

Secondly, there's no way a carrier would try to deny this with a 'rodent damage' exclusion. That's for things like rats chewing and shiatting in your walls because you don't maintain your own property. With this being an off-premises issue, there'd be no way for the homeowners to anticipate or mitigate the issue. This is the type of loss a homeowners policy is designed to cover.

I doubt that whoever "told" them it wouldn't be covered works for their carrier. I'd guess it was a friend/family member who wasn't involved in the loss and doesn't know what they're talking about, or a dumbass agent who doesn't understand the policies they sell. And there are a lot of those agents out there...


wrong-o on the need for flood insurance. According to my State Farm agent, if you have extraordinarily heavy rains and water comes in through a basement window or maybe your sump pump fails in a power outage, that is considered flood damage and is not typically covered under a homeowners policy. You need flood insurance for that.

It's a fact.
2013-06-29 01:38:11 PM  
1 votes:
They need a permit to remove the beavers ? 
I'm sorry but usually whoever is in charge of animal control in the area should be able to make the call and get them out as soon as there is danger for habitations...
2013-06-29 11:43:45 AM  
1 votes:

Intrepid00: It was really crab people.


No! It was that damn global warming!

filmcrithulk.files.wordpress.com
2013-06-29 11:36:12 AM  
1 votes:
Why not just pay some kid since it is summer time $100 a pelt to go up there with a .22 and fix it
2013-06-29 11:22:42 AM  
1 votes:
So,... it's expensive to trap the 20 or so beavers and they have to continuously monitor the area lest a new group moves in. Why not just install a diversion pipe to keep the water level down?
 
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report