Icemaker Line Failure: Water Damage, Mold, and the Known-Stain Problem
An HO-3 on a Greensboro home shows $400,000 Coverage A (replacement cost), $200,000 Coverage C, a $2,500 all-peril deductible, and the standard $10,000 mold sublimit. The insureds left for a 30-day trip. The icemaker supply-line connector cracked and water ran undetected for roughly three weeks. Damage: hardwood flooring $14,000; drywall and insulation $9,000; kitchen cabinetry $11,000; mold remediation $26,000; and $4,000 to tear out undamaged wall to reach the mold. Three weeks before the trip the insured had noticed a small water stain under the refrigerator and 'kept an eye on it' without calling anyone.
1. Is the water damage covered, and what difference does the pre-trip stain make?
Read the worked answer
The loss starts as a covered peril, then collides with two exclusions.
Covered: An HO-3 covers accidental discharge or overflow of water from a plumbing system or household appliance. A cracked supply-line connector is the textbook example.
Exclusion 1 - constant or repeated seepage: The form excludes leakage or seepage over a period of 14 days or more. Three weeks of running water squarely fits. The insured's admission that he saw a stain and 'kept an eye on it' is evidence he knew of leakage before he left. The insurer's burden is to show the seepage persisted 14+ days and that the insured knew or should have known.
Exclusion 2 - vacancy: The form's vacancy exclusion (typically 60 consecutive days) does not apply to a 30-day trip, and in any event it targets vandalism, glass breakage, and malicious mischief rather than water.
Judgment call: the exclusion is not all-or-nothing. If investigation shows the connector failed suddenly during the trip and the stain was unrelated (a spill, condensation), the water damage is fully covered and the stain is a red herring. If the plumber shows a slow failure that began before the trip, the exclusion can bar the resulting damage. The adjuster should obtain the connector and a plumber's report before committing.
2. Assume the loss is covered. Compute what the policy pays, showing each step.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - Separate the mold bucket from the water bucket.
The mold sublimit includes the cost to tear out and replace property to get access to the mold. So the mold bucket is:
- Remediation: $26,000
- Tear-out to reach mold: $4,000
- Total mold-related: $30,000
Step 2 - Non-mold direct physical damage.
- Hardwood $14,000 + drywall/insulation $9,000 + cabinetry $11,000 = $34,000
- Less the $2,500 deductible = $31,500
Step 3 - Apply the mold cap.
- $30,000 in mold-related costs, limited to the $10,000 sublimit = $10,000
Step 4 - Total.
- $31,500 + $10,000 = $41,500
The deductible is applied once to the loss, not separately to the mold bucket. On a replacement-cost dwelling, recoverable depreciation is withheld until repairs are completed. Coverage C contents would be settled separately at actual cash value unless endorsed.
3. Suppose the adjuster concludes the connector failed suddenly on day two of the trip and the stain was unrelated. What changes?
Read the worked answer
The coverage reasoning changes completely; the dollar result does not.
- The 14-day seepage exclusion, the knowledge problem, and any neglect argument all disappear. The entire $34,000 of water damage is a clean covered loss.
- The mold still arises from a covered water loss, so it remains covered - but it is still capped by the $10,000 sublimit, and the tear-out costs remain inside that cap.
- Because the mold bucket ($30,000) exceeds the cap either way, the payment is still $41,500.
The takeaway: the factual dispute matters to the coverage determination and the claim file, but the mold sublimit is the binding constraint. That is exactly the kind of trap the exam sets - a correct coverage conclusion with an unchanged number, rewarding the candidate who computes instead of assuming a change in facts changes the check.
One practical note: even in this version, the insureds' duty to protect property from further damage should be examined - but a homeowner who is away cannot mitigate a leak he does not know about.