Nicole Vinson | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog | October 3, 2015
In future posts, court cases involving latent defect exclusionary language found in property insurance policies will be examined, but in order to dig in and see how the courts handle these cases, here is some background on this policy language.
When a policy covers a latent defect, the prerequisite to coverage is the requirement that the defect be undiscovered and essentially a camouflaged defect that allowed the damage to occur while the insureds were not on notice of the problem.
To do justice on this topic, it is important to understand what the insurance company is talking about when they say “latent defect” in your jurisdiction. In one case, “Latent defect,” refers to a defect not readily observable or discoverable upon reasonable inspection. See Board of Education of Maine Township High School Dist. 207 v. International Insurance Co., 292 Ill. App. 3d 14, 684 N.E. 2d 978, 990, app. Denied, 175 Ill. 2d 523, 689 N.E. 2d 1137 (1997).
Remember, for the insurance company to allege latent defect as an exclusion, there has to be something that it argues is defective. And this is where the debates get interesting. If this policy language exclusion is cited in a denial letter the policyholder should ask for more information. This exclusionary language is overused and a popular buzzword that looks good and is lumped in on a denial letter because it sounds official but it may not shape up to be a basis for denying at all.
Even if there is a defect in a component that causes a loss, a second step is required. To truly be latent, the issue has to be something that could not have been determined with a reasonable evaluation, and this makes for some really interesting litigation.
When latent defects are covered, you will likely have to press for coverage in that situation too. The carriers tend to argue that just a reasonable inspection would have placed you on notice of your defect. This is another easy out.
To read the rest of this article