The Bakery That Wept for Six Weeks
Rosa owns a 40-year-old bakery building insured on a commercial property form: $1.2M building (replacement cost), $150,000 contents (actual cash value), a $5,000 deductible, a $25,000 mold remediation sublimit, and business income with a 72-hour waiting period. In March a corroded copper supply line under the slab failed and water flooded the sales floor. The plumber's invoice states the line had been "weeping for at least six weeks" before it let go. Rosa tells you she first saw a damp spot near a baseboard "a month or two" earlier and put a bucket under it. The damage inventory totals $187,000: $69,000 of saturated flooring, subfloor and framing along the line's path; $38,000 of mold remediation in that same area; and $80,000 of damage on the day the line finally burst, including ruined ovens and inventory. Rosa also claims $22,000 of lost income.
1. Allocate the $187,000 between covered and uncovered damage and state what you would pay before considering business income. Show your math.
Read the worked answer
Governing exclusion. The form excludes damage from "constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water over a period of 14 days or more." Two independent sources establish the duration: the plumber's six-week estimate and Rosa's own admission of an observed damp spot a month or more earlier. That is well past 14 days, so the exclusion is triggered.
Allocation.
- $69,000 of flooring, subfloor and framing along the line's path - the direct product of the long-term seepage. Excluded, including the cost to tear out and replace the pipe and the slab ($5,000 deductible does not apply to excluded damage).
- $38,000 of mold in that same footprint - mold that grew out of excluded seepage is not covered. $0 payable.
- $80,000 from the day the line burst - a sudden and accidental discharge, a separate occurrence. Covered.
Payment. $80,000 gross less the $5,000 deductible = $75,000. Contents are valued at actual cash value, so reduce the inventory portion by depreciation before issuing. Also check whether any of the $80,000 includes code-upgrade costs (ordinance or law exclusion) and confirm the building was insured to value before applying replacement cost.
2. Rosa argues that because mold is treated as a separate peril, the $25,000 sublimit should not apply to the mold caused by the burst, and that the full $38,000 should be paid. Evaluate the argument.
Read the worked answer
The argument inverts the structure of the form. A mold sublimit is a limitation on coverage that is otherwise granted, not an independent grant of coverage.
The sequence is: (1) is the mold the result of a covered peril? (2) if yes, it is capped at $25,000 in the aggregate.
Here the mold sits inside the excluded seepage footprint, so step one fails and the sublimit is never reached. The answer would be different only if you could segregate mold attributable to the sudden burst - then that mold would be covered, but still capped at $25,000 total. Since the remediation estimate covers one contiguous area, ask the remediator to break out the square footage by date of wetting. Unless a reliable split is produced, treat the whole $38,000 as stemming from the excluded seepage.
Tell Rosa clearly, in writing, which exclusion and which sublimit you are applying, and cite the form language. A vague "mold isn't covered" letter invites a complaint to the Department of Financial Services.
3. What must Rosa prove to collect the $22,000 of lost income, and for what period?
Read the worked answer
Business income requires: (1) a suspension of operations caused by covered direct physical loss; (2) proof of the earnings actually lost; and (3) a period of restoration limited to the time reasonably required to repair that covered damage.
Period. The clock starts after the 72-hour waiting period and runs only for the time needed to repair the burst-related damage - not the excluded seepage remediation. If the ovens and sales floor could be restored in five weeks, five weeks is the ceiling regardless of how long the seepage repairs take.
Proof. Profit-and-loss statements, tax returns and Schedule C for the prior two years, daily sales journals, payroll and rent records, and documentation of continuing expenses. Because the shop was also open during part of the seepage period, compare actual sales against the same weeks in prior years rather than accepting a lump-sum estimate.
Deductions. Lost income is net of continuing non-operating expenses the business did not incur, and any income earned from catering or alternate locations during the shutdown offsets the claim. Expect a substantial reduction from $22,000.