2026 started with freezing weather gripping much of the country. As a result, there have been many frozen pipe claims. A recent Washington federal court decision provides timely guidance for policyholders and property insurance adjusters navigating these situations. 1 While the ruling ultimately favored the insurer, the reasoning and facts provide important lessons about how to analyze “reasonable care to maintain heat” and ensuing loss issues in cold-weather claims.
The case arose from a duplex where pipes froze and burst during a severe cold snap, with temperatures dropping as low as negative 10 degrees. The tenants were away, and the insured owners had agreed to monitor the property. The insurer denied the claim, asserting that the policyholders failed to use “reasonable care” to maintain heat. Both sides moved for summary judgment.
The court’s decision began with well-established principles. It confirmed that “reasonable care” is not an ambiguous term and is judged by what a reasonably prudent person would do under similar circumstances. It also acknowledged that this is typically a fact-intensive inquiry. However, the court concluded that in this instance, the facts were sufficiently one-sided to decide the issue as a matter of law.
What stands out and what readers should pay close attention to are the specific facts the court relied upon in reaching that conclusion. These are the types of details courts and insurers will look for in evaluating frozen pipe claims.
First, the court focused heavily on prior knowledge and maintenance history. The insureds had been informed months earlier that the furnace filter was completely clogged and needed to be replaced regularly. When the loss occurred, the same issue was present again. The court viewed this not as an isolated oversight but as a known condition that went unaddressed. For policyholders, this underscores the importance of following maintenance recommendations, particularly when they directly affect the system responsible for preventing freezing.
Second, the court emphasized what might be called “warning signs” that were not acted upon. The insured had observed that the thermostat reading remained at 40 degrees despite increasing the setting. He even acknowledged that this seemed unusual. However, no further investigation was undertaken, and no additional inspection occurred during the critical period leading up to the freeze. Courts and insurance company adjusters often look closely at these moments and evaluate whether a reasonable person would have taken additional steps.
Third, the court gave weight to objective data, including utility records and expert analysis. The insurer presented evidence suggesting that natural gas usage was minimal, consistent with a system that was not actively heating the property. While such data may not tell the entire story, it can be persuasive when combined with other facts. For those handling claims, utility records can become a central piece of the evidentiary puzzle.
Fourth, the severity of the weather played a role, but not in the way the policyholders hoped. The court acknowledged that the cold snap was extreme. However, it concluded that what may have been reasonable under ordinary conditions was not necessarily reasonable under unusually harsh conditions. In other words, the standard of care can shift with the circumstances. As temperatures drop, the expectation of vigilance may rise.
The court also addressed the policyholders’ argument regarding ensuing loss. They contended that even if freezing was excluded, a furnace malfunction could have set the chain of events in motion, making the resulting water damage covered. The court rejected this argument, finding that the loss stemmed from excluded causes and that the policyholders had not met the conditions necessary to restore coverage. This portion of the decision highlights the importance of clearly establishing the sequence of causation and how different policy provisions interact.
On the claims handling side, the court found that the insurer conducted a sufficient investigation and did not act in bad faith. The insurer had reviewed available information, including utility data, and reopened the claim when additional information was provided. For insurers and policyholders alike, this serves as a reminder that documentation of the investigation process is important. The timing of decisions can be critical in evaluating bad faith allegations.
While the court ultimately ruled for the insurer, the decision does not mean that every frozen pipe claim involving similar facts will be decided the same way. “Reasonable care” remains a fact-driven inquiry, and different courts may weigh similar evidence differently. There were competing interpretations of the facts in this case, and that is something an appellate court may examine if the decision is challenged. An appeal would not be surprising given the stakes and the legal issues involved, although the outcome of any such appeal is far from certain.
Frozen pipe claims are rarely decided on a single fact. Instead, they are evaluated based on a combination of maintenance history, observed conditions, responsiveness to warning signs, and objective evidence. Policyholders should document their efforts to monitor and maintain properties during cold weather, especially when those properties are unoccupied. Insurers and adjusters should carefully assess not just what happened, but what the insured knew and how they responded.
As 2026 winter frozen pipe claims are being evaluated across much of the country, this case serves as a useful guidepost. It reminds us that insurance coverage often turns on the details. Everybody involved with these claims should be asking what was done, what was known, and what could reasonably have been expected under the circumstances.
Thought For The Day
“The mountains are calling and I must go.”
— John Muir
1 Hill v. Farmers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2:25-cv-0048 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2026). See also, Hill’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Farmers Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, and Hill’s Response to Farmers Motion for Summary Judgment.
