Burst Pipe, Mold, and the Twelve-Day Absence
The Cardins leave their 1978 colonial in Concord for twelve days in January, setting the thermostat at 55°F before they go. A supply line to a second-floor toilet fails and water runs for days. They return to $38,000 of structural damage, $14,000 of ruined furniture and clothing, mold found inside the kitchen wall ($18,000 to remediate), and $7,200 of hotel and restaurant bills for the 30 days repairs take. Their HO-3 shows: Coverage A $400,000, Coverage B $40,000, Coverage C $200,000, Coverage D $80,000, a $10,000 mold sublimit, and a $2,000 deductible. The adjuster is weighing the freeze exclusion, the constant-or-repeated-seepage exclusion, and how mold and additional living expense should be treated.
1. Decide whether the freeze exclusion or the repeated-seepage exclusion bars the water damage, and explain the reasoning for each.
Read the worked answer
Freeze exclusion - does not bar. The homeowners freeze exclusion turns on the building being vacant or unoccupied and the insured failing to maintain heat or shut off the water supply. Here the heat was maintained at 55°F, which is exactly the step the exclusion is designed to reward. The home was temporarily absent, not vacant, and the insured took the required precaution. Coverage for the escape of water applies.
Constant or repeated seepage exclusion - does not bar. That exclusion targets water that has leaked slowly and continuously over a period of weeks or months (commonly 14 days or more) so that the damage is really deferred maintenance. This was a single sudden failure of a supply line followed by continuous discharge. The failure is sudden, the discharge is accidental, and the duration of the flow was the result of absence rather than a known, tolerated leak.
Practical caution: the adjuster should still verify the line was not already leaking before the trip and that no prior seepage staining appears on the first floor. If the insured knew of a slow leak and traveled anyway, the analysis on that portion changes.
2. Calculate the total property payment, applying the mold sublimit and the deductible correctly, and identify the sublimit's real effect.
Read the worked answer
Coverage A structural: $38,000 Mold remediation: claimed $18,000, capped at the $10,000 sublimit → $10,000 Coverage C personal property: $14,000
All three arise from one occurrence, so only one deductible applies:
$38,000 + $10,000 + $14,000 = $62,000 $62,000 − $2,000 = $60,000
Do not apply the deductible three times - that is the most common error on a multi-coverage water loss, and it under-pays the insured by $4,000.
Real effect of the sublimit: the insured loses $8,000 of mold remediation outright, and that $8,000 also does not count toward satisfying the deductible or exhausting any limit. Mold sublimits are inside Coverage A, not additional to it, so the $400,000 dwelling limit is untouched.
Watch for: if the mold resulted from the insured's failure to mitigate (for example, leaving standing water for two weeks after discovery), the carrier has a legitimate argument to reduce the mold portion, but not the sudden-discharge portion.
3. The Cardins' Coverage D limit is $80,000 and they claim $7,200. Are they paid in full, and what three conditions should the adjuster test?
Read the worked answer
Amount is well inside the limit, so the question is eligibility, not arithmetic. Tentative answer: yes, $7,200 for the increase over normal expenses, subject to three tests.
- Increase, not substitute, expense. Coverage D pays the necessary increase in living costs. The family still ate; only the difference between restaurant meals and normal grocery spending is covered, and only the extra cost of the hotel over the mortgage/utilities that continue. The adjuster should ask for receipts and a normal-expense baseline before accepting $7,200 at face value.
- Period of restoration. The clock runs while the dwelling is being repaired with reasonable speed, not while the family waits for a contractor's preferred start date. Thirty days for $38,000 of water repair plus mold remediation is plausible; the adjuster should confirm the remediation schedule was not slowed by the insured's choices.
- Reasonableness and necessity. A hotel 40 miles away or a 30-day stay once the home was habitable both fail the test.
Also confirm the $7,200 is not being double-counted inside Coverage C or added to the Coverage A figure, and note that Coverage D generally carries no separate deductible because the occurrence deductible was already applied.