The swimming pool at Anne’s property that was rented out experienced a significant drop in water level, prompting her to submit a claim under her homeowner’s policy. An independent loss adjuster reviewed the case and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the damage arose from an insured peril.

Anne and her husband provided all available documentation, including pressure-testing results from their pool maintenance contractor, and expressed dissatisfaction with the insurer’s decision to repudiate the claim.

FINDINGS

The tenant had first alerted Anne and her husband about the rapid drop in the pool’s water level. A joint mediation session was carried out, during which all parties discussed the matter in detail.

A key issue examined was a video produced by the complainant’s contractor, which showed that an underground rainwater pipe had dislodged, causing soil erosion that led to damage to the wall located behind the swimming pool. The claim encompassed pressure-testing costs and the demolition and full reconstruction of the swimming pool, the damaged wall, and post-construction testing.

The insurer noted that several components of the claim, including the cost of complete pool reconstruction and pressure-testing, were excessive and fell outside the policy’s scope.

OUTCOME

Taking these observations into account, the insurer reviewed the claim, issued a revised offer after excluding non-covered items. Anne accepted the settlement, bringing the dispute to a close.