Raccoons Damaging Your Roof? Are You Covered Under Your Policy?
Last week, I wrote about whether a tarp constitutes a part of the structure during repairs. In response, Jeff Petrucci of Bloomfield Construction, posted a very interesting question which lead to this week’s topic: Whether roof damage caused by a raccoon is covered under an insurance policy?
Many policyholders are surprised to find out a raccoon is living or nesting in their attic or roof. They usually learn of their unwanted tenants only after the creatures have damaged their home. The following picture is an example the type of damage that raccoons can cause to a roof.
This type of damage is far too common and is a gateway to even more damage, including ensuing water and wind damage. Policyholders should make sure their policies cover this type of loss.
Insurance companies consistently use Vermin Exclusions when denying these types of claims. Fortunately for policyholders, many policies fail to define the term “vermin.”
Vermin is defined in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary as:
- any of a number of small animals with filthy, destructive, troublesome habits as flies, lice, bedbugs, mice, rats, and weasels;
- any bird or animal that kills game;
- (a) a person who is vile, worthless, or objectionable; (b) such persons collectively.
Because the term “vermin” is not more specifically defined in many policies, an insured is entitled to the most favorable definition of the term.
In Marks v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 531 So.2d 516, 517 (La. Ct. App. 1988), the trial court concluded the term “vermin” in the policy’s Vermin Exclusion was ambiguous. The court relied on a factually similar Texas case where the damage was caused by a squirrel. Jones v. American Economy Ins. Co., 672 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.App. 5 Dist.1984). The Texas court concluded the term vermin is susceptible of more than one interpretation and is ambiguous. Having made this determination, the Texas court then construed the exclusion in favor of the insured and held “vermin” does not include a squirrel under the terms of the policy. The trial court in Marks expressly adopted the rationale of the Texas court and concluded a raccoon is not a vermin under the policy exclusion.
The American Association of Insurance Services (AAIS) drafts policy language for insurance companies to write into their policies. The AAIS responded to findings of ambiguity in the Vermin Exclusion and, in 2007, amended its Vermin Exclusion by specifically defining the term “vermin” to mean “an animal of a type that is prone to enter or burrow into or under a structure to seek food or shelter, including raccoons.”
AAIS’s response is detrimental to policyholders. If you are not aware of which Vermin Exclusion is contained in your policy, you need to find out. Adding this type of coverage is inexpensive compared to the major perils of wind and water.
UPDATE: Thanks to Neil Hall for pointing out the Allstate ad:
Interestingly, the Allstate "mayhem" TV commercial suggests that raccoon damage is covered.
Raccoons gone wild! But all is not lost as in the Liberty Mutual Homeowners policy it seems there is in fact some Raccoon coverage! Liberty's Environmental Claims Specialist writes to their Tampa Fla. insured " With respect to property coverage for this loss, based upon the results of our investigation and the terms of the policy there is property coverage for the repair of physical damage caused by the Raccoon gaining entry to the home as well as any damage from their nesting activities.
However there is no coverage for the cost to evict the Raccoon, remove their excrement or repair damage by the raccoons excrement" One has to ponder the question (deeply) if answering mother natures call as in doing Raccoons business in and around the nest is a nesting activity or something else. Any comments?
Very interesting to read. I agree @ vermins, we had rats in attic and destroyed our airconditioner lines; ate through all lines. We need to be aware of whats going on @ us, thank you Larry.
I had a Racoon Invasion Damaged Attic Insulation and Stains came onto Ceiling below , Pembroke Pines, South Florida , Carrier was Tower Hill ,
My Argument was "The Racoons were not Invited in ,
Home Invasion, Mal Mischief clause in the policy does not state that the burgular has to be a person.
so ambiguiety must exist ,
They Paid,
Forget the fact that Its an Animal or a pest, If they are not Invited into the home, Its Burgulary.
My Five Pence,
Bob
Racoons are a member of the bear family and as such fall outside of the vermin exclusion.
Olympus insurance. Discovered flying squirrels in attic, after one dropped through air vent in ceiling. Called insurance company spoke with agent and agent stated its covered under my policy. My policy stated rodents, vermin, birds, insects not covered. Agent stated she had a similar case and had an email stating that squirrel are not considered rodents under Olympus policy. She stated I had duty to mitigate damage immediately and provided number to company to take care of the problem. I said will you forward me that email, she said she was not permitted, however, if it becomes of issue, which it won't, she would attest to same and provide email for proof.
So I call company out as she instructed to mitigate damage, and they start trapping work.
Adjuster is located by Olympus and is sent out by another claims handler assigned to my case, adjuster asked if claim was covered, because he states sometimes these things are not, claims handler assures it is and adjuster comes out.
Same Olympus claims rep that sent adjuster out then notifies me that there is still investigation on my claim and then notifies me that they will not cover the claim, states squirrels are rodents and its not a covered peril.
Meanwhile, whole time we have alerted that we are being exposed to fiberglass insulation seeking through air vents, very visible and pictures taken of same through vents, which is due to HVAC damage to duct system. They ignore these statements and state the terms of policy are that rodents not covered and squirrels are considered rodents.
First claim rep stated email she had specifically from another case says different, the policy does not define what is rodent, what is vermin, insect, or type of bird.
I personally would not have thought of small flying squirrel as rodent, nor a regular squirrel as a rodent, the only thing I think of when rodent is mentioned is rat or mice, in fact had never knew there was such thing as flying squirrel and would never know what catergory they fall, if any. In researching AFTER this, I see squirrels are listed as rodentia, squirrel gliders, and sugar gliders are marsupials, but regular squirrels are rodents, however there are so many different species of squirrels and this is surprising as well and some articles state some flying squirrels are rodents.
In looking over my policy now, knowing prior I do not have flood insurance, that is what I thought was the only thing would not be protected, I see my policy is actually useless in so many scenarios, if you go by the terms and added endorsments that I believe my mortgage company who thinks they are also insured if I were to have a loss, would OBJECT.
What is the purpose of policy, if each term, clause and endorsement are added throughout the year to protect the carrier from covering claims as they realize new risks and ADD them throughout the year as they think of new verbiage to deny claims.
As the poster said too, these flying squirrel were not invited into my home, did not know they were there, and they have damaged my home and our health with fiberglass insulation inhaling it, skin contact, potential disease from, much damage to attic. In fact it is the carrier learning of my husbands bleeding sinuses ( Doctor diagnosed ) that changed their tune, it was after I alerted our home was not safe due to this, that they changed tune on coverage.
Distressed in Florida.
I especially like the part about animal damage being burglary, haven't heard that one. But it sounds like a good approach! This is the stuff I was looking for last year.