Texas Supreme Justice Brister wrote in his opinion, “The question in this case is not whether insurers should provide mold coverage in Texas, a public policy question beyond our jurisdiction as a court. The question instead is whether the language in an insurance policy provides such coverage, no more and no less.”
The homeowners’ policy in question states:
We do not cover loss caused by:
(1) Wear and tear, deterioration or loss caused by any quality in property that causes it to damage or destroy itself.
(2) Rust, rot, mold or other fungi.
(3) Dampness of atmosphere, extremes of temperature.
(4) Contamination.
(5) Rats, mice, termites, moths or other insects.
We do cover ensuing loss caused by collapse of the building or any part of the building, water damage, or breakage of glass which is part of the building if the loss would otherwise be covered under this policy.
The confusion was because of the mention of water damage being covered and whether if that lead to mold would then mold be covered. Unfortunately when an insurance policy says, “We do not cover loss covered loss by mold” the insurer is being fairly explicit.
Comment Preview