i think i’d look at a clause that’s in, but not printed in the policy, the “inherent explosion” clause pertaining to the peril of fire.
significant exposure in rendering plants. decomposition of organic material causes increased pressures, resulting in an “explosion”.
We had a case like this in Carter Lake Iowa. We insued the rental property on a Special form policy with Auto Owners. We paid for the reconstruction of the house caused by the damage of the body degenerating. The owner took the ACV settlement offered and decided to tear the dwelling down. This case is entirely different though. Contents under an HO-3 policy are insured on a broad form basis rather than special form unless you buy the HO-5, but I dont remember reading about an specific exploding body exclusion????
Gross. But at least some underwriter can now come up with an exploding corpse endorsement….just in case.
i think i’d look at a clause that’s in, but not printed in the policy, the “inherent explosion” clause pertaining to the peril of fire.
significant exposure in rendering plants. decomposition of organic material causes increased pressures, resulting in an “explosion”.
r
Would seem to me that the decision went against the “Body” of evidence!
I agree. This stinks.
The case really blew up in her face.
Reminds me of the bloated whale on SNL Saturday night.
We had a case like this in Carter Lake Iowa. We insued the rental property on a Special form policy with Auto Owners. We paid for the reconstruction of the house caused by the damage of the body degenerating. The owner took the ACV settlement offered and decided to tear the dwelling down. This case is entirely different though. Contents under an HO-3 policy are insured on a broad form basis rather than special form unless you buy the HO-5, but I dont remember reading about an specific exploding body exclusion????
It sounds like he had broad form coverage, not special.