It seems pretty clear that the Idaho Counties’ program did not deny coverage; rather, they denied that the city was legally liable for the damage. Coverage and liability are separate issues; the former is a matter of what the policy or coverage contract says, and the latter is a matter of state law. That a journal specializing in covering insurance issues would obscure that distinction is disappointing.
Is this story saying they didn’t have sewer back up coverage on the policies. If they did, it shouldn’t matter the cause of the sewer back up right?
What a crappy decision.
It seems pretty clear that the Idaho Counties’ program did not deny coverage; rather, they denied that the city was legally liable for the damage. Coverage and liability are separate issues; the former is a matter of what the policy or coverage contract says, and the latter is a matter of state law. That a journal specializing in covering insurance issues would obscure that distinction is disappointing.