Pollutant exclusion for damage caused by raccoons

[Kevinaces]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio
This summer I had a varmint contractor remove raccoons from my ceiling. The damage caused by their bathroom habits yielded smelly stains to the drywall ceiling in my dining room, requiring removal of the effected drywall. As the contractor performed his duties he found additional matting and tearing of the insulation in the area, as well as fecal material. He removed several sections of dry wall until he could no longer find damaged insulation. He also worked from the roof, by removing shingles and plywood to locate additional damage caused by the raccoons. He put my home back to original condition for a fee of $7000. My homeowners insurance explains they will cover the damaged portion caused directly by the raccoons, but not for any damage caused by their eliminations stating, "We do not insure, however, for loss.. Caused by any of the following.. Discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release of escape of pollutants unless the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by a Peril Insured Against under Coverage C of this this policy. Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste, Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed." The damage attributed to the raccoons does not exceed the $1000 deductible- this is for the repair to the roof and soffitt where chewing and bending of flashing occurred.
I have submitted for information from the Ohio Insurance Department and the Ohio Consumer Affairs office. The insurance department explains there is nothing out of line with claim denial although the letter states I might seek legal assistance. Consumer affairs has no jurisdiction, but as well explained I might seek legal counsel.
I question the legal and moral principal in denying the claim. I believe the insurance company is wrongfully defining the term pollutant and should pay on my claim in whole, minus the deductible. Should I seek a legal end to this argument, or be advised in another direction?

 

[ecmst12]

Feel free to talk to a lawyer but I think the DOI probably has it right.

 

[justalayman]

I see it differently than ecmst12.

"We do not insure, however, for loss.. Caused by any of the following.. Discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release of escape of pollutants unless the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by a Peril Insured Against under Coverage C of this this policy. Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste, Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed."

this section:

unless the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by a Peril Insured Against under Coverage C

the damage by the 'coons is covered hence the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape of their fecal matter and urine would be covered.

 

[ecmst12]

Depends what Coverage C says I suppose.

 

[justalayman]

Depends what Coverage C says I suppose.

fo' sho'

and upon my further investigation, it would appear that it section c does not cover the damage to the home. It appears it covers unscheduled personal property.

so

"We do not insure, however, for loss.. Caused by any of the following.. Discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release of escape of pollutants unless the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by a Peril Insured Against under Coverage C of this this policy.

in my twisted logic, I read that as;

if damage by a raccoon to property under the coverage provided coverage C was covered under coverage C, the discharge of raccoon would still be covered, even if the damage was not to items falling under coverage C, right?

 

[Kevinaces]

Pollutants. Ask an EPA guy his opinion.

I have no legal expertise, but the exclusions are a contract and must be clearly stated to be fully understood. By defining pollutants, as "any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste, Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed", is there truly an understanding of what a pollutant actually is and that pest eliminations qualify as such? I am reminded of an airline incident where a plane accidentally released the contents of its bathroom vaults over a neighborhood. Can you imagine a homeowner finding out they are not covered because the damage caused was a pollutant, in this loosely defined denial?
Raccoons caused damage to my home. Sure, the repair was precipitated by the stains, smells, and most notably the fear the raccoons poo may harbor disease, bacteria, etc., (my daughter takes a medicine for her arthritis that reduces her immune systems - we are very cautious of her slightest nose blow, let alone the gunk in the ceiling leaching through to the dining area.), feces is not something anyone wants to allow to remain in their home. I do not believe an insurance company should be able to define an exclusion in such broad terms that in most circumstances they can find a policy owner's situation to fit into it.
I do not meant to be argumentative with the people I am asking assistance of. Apologies in advance, if the above seems to be so; I am not happy with this insurance company's position, which is rooted in their casual, non specific use, of the language.

 

[Mroche95]

Kevinaces - what happened.

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio
This summer I had a varmint contractor remove raccoons from my ceiling. The damage caused by their bathroom habits yielded smelly stains to the drywall ceiling in my dining room, requiring removal of the effected drywall. As the contractor performed his duties he found additional matting and tearing of the insulation in the area, as well as fecal material. He removed several sections of dry wall until he could no longer find damaged insulation. He also worked from the roof, by removing shingles and plywood to locate additional damage caused by the raccoons. He put my home back to original condition for a fee of $7000. My homeowners insurance explains they will cover the damaged portion caused directly by the raccoons, but not for any damage caused by their eliminations stating, "We do not insure, however, for loss.. Caused by any of the following.. Discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release of escape of pollutants unless the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by a Peril Insured Against under Coverage C of this this policy. Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste, Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed." The damage attributed to the raccoons does not exceed the $1000 deductible- this is for the repair to the roof and soffitt where chewing and bending of flashing occurred.
I have submitted for information from the Ohio Insurance Department and the Ohio Consumer Affairs office. The insurance department explains there is nothing out of line with claim denial although the letter states I might seek legal assistance. Consumer affairs has no jurisdiction, but as well explained I might seek legal counsel.
I question the legal and moral principal in denying the claim. I believe the insurance company is wrongfully defining the term pollutant and should pay on my claim in whole, minus the deductible. Should I seek a legal end to this argument, or be advised in another direction?

Curious to know how this was resolved. We live in Ohio and are facing similar denial by insurance carrier. It just doesn't seem right.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Color me confused. If you get racoons living in your attic, you set a trap, catch them and remove them. There is little or no damage. For significant damages to occur you had to allow it to go on for a long time.

 

[LdiJ]

Color me confused. If you get racoons living in your attic, you set a trap, catch them and remove them. There is little or no damage. For significant damages to occur you had to allow it to go on for a long time.

Not as long as you might think. Those puppies can do a lot of damage in just a few days.

 

[Mroche95]

It does not take long for damage.

Color me confused. If you get racoons living in your attic, you set a trap, catch them and remove them. There is little or no damage. For significant damages to occur you had to allow it to go on for a long time.

We are guessing that she was there for 10 days. Had an exterminator there for mice and he saw no evidence of animal activity besides mice. We noticed a stain on ceiling a few days after he left and assumed it was a dead mouse. Contacted exterminator and he told us that was not typical of a dead mouse. We then heard loud noises and called wildlife guy who got a baby and spooked the mom out of the house.

 

[Kevinaces]

a year later

I settled with my contractor, leaving the insurance company, Donegal, Marietta, PA, to win.
I moved into a hours that had been vacant for 6 months. Neighbors tell me the former owner had the problem as well, leaving me to guess she did nothing to contain it. The raccoon may have been a repeat resident, perhaps having several litters over several seasons.

 

[ecmst12]

Thanks for the update...and I get to remember that this is the thread that I was reading while I was in labor!