The Texas woman encountered the snake while working in her yard. She poured gas on the snake to try to kill it and her son dropped a lit match on the serpent. Enraged, the snake slithered towards some brush and "poof" - the rest is hissss-tory.
Assuming this woman carried home insurance, is this a covered claim? Fortunately, there is not a "stupidity" clause in the standard home insurance policy. (Not to say there aren't times when adjusters would love to invoke such a clause!) So the actions of the woman and her son should not preclude her from receiving a claim payment. Let's look a bit deeper.

Another standard exclusion in home insurance policies is for damage caused by "vermin". The last time I checked, snakes most definitely qualified as vermin. Does this mean the damage is not covered?
Insurance policies follow the rule of "proximate cause" when more than one set of circumstances contribute to a claim. In laymen's term, this is the "but for" clause -"but for" the fire, the snake would not have damaged the home. In this case, the snake may have contributed to the loss but the fire is the proximate cause of this claim. Based on these facts, the woman's home insurance will cover her claim.
Most of us have an aversion to snakes and would like to rid our neighborhoods of them. Fire is not the answer. There is an old Chinese proverb that would have served this Texas woman, her neighbor and her home insurer well - "Beat the grass to frighten the snakes".
No comments:
Post a Comment