If you own a rental property here in Melbourne or another city in Florida, you probably work very hard to maintain your property so as to attract more tenants and make a profit. But despite your best efforts, you know that your property could suffer damage that may cause it to lose value or become unusable later on.
If you're like most landlords, you probably have the belief that damage like this should be covered under the physical loss clause of your insurance policy. If you do, you wouldn't be completely wrong. Physical damage such as from flooding or fire can all trigger this part of your insurance policy. But what about things you can't see that also cause your property to lose value? Could these still trigger your policy? Let's take a look.
The main problem with the physical loss clause of an insurance policy is the fact that each state interprets it a little differently. Some states are stricter in their interpretation of the clause while others offer vague explanations that typically lead to more confusion and the need to seek help from the courts. With the latter of the two, courts must look to case law to find a resolution.
In several cases already, as well as one that was recently decided on by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, many judges have concluded that unseen sources of damage should trigger an insurance policy for a property. But as was pointed out by a Claims Journal article a few years ago, sources of damage that are undetectable to the naked eye are held to a higher scrutiny by the court, meaning if a case does not meet the court's threshold of damage, a plaintiff may not be awarded compensation from their insurance company.
Because most people only have a broad understanding of the law, it can be difficult for many people to know the subtle intricacies found in their own state. This could be something you might be worried about at this very moment. Thankfully, the attorneys here at Frese, Whitehead & Anderson, P.A. can help by offering legal advice that can help you reach a fair resolution.