House Detective: Making the Most of Home Inspection

Dear Barry: I am presently in escrow to buy a home, and the mortgage company requires that I buy flood insurance. This must mean that there has been flooding at some time in the past, but I see no evidence of water damage anywhere on the property. So I’m wondering, how serious can the insurance requirement be? Is there any way to find out if the house has been flooded, and if so, what was the extent of the damage?   Kathleen

Dear Kathleen: The requirement for flood insurance does not mean that the house has been flooded in the past. Mortgage companies typically base flood insurance requirements on the location of the property, not on its flood history. If a house is situated in a geological flood plane — that is, if there is the possibility of flooding every100 years — then flood insurance is usually required. In some cases, where only a portion of the property is situated in a flood plane, flood insurance will be required, even if the home itself is on higher ground and not located in the flood plane.

You should check with the county engineering department to determine whether the home you are buying is actually located in a flood zone. In some cases, it is possible to negotiate these insurance requirements with the mortgage company.

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: Last winter, we had a house fire. The burn damage inside was relatively small, but the smoke damage was extreme.  It was so bad that we had to move out for several months, and the drywall, insulation, and floor coverings had to be removed from every room. While the house was unoccupied, the winter was unusually harsh, with ice on the inside and outside of the building. During this time, most of the windowpanes cracked, and the window frames no longer slide normally. The insurance company does not consider this to be part of the fire damage and are unwilling to pay for new windows. How can we convince them that the windows would not have broken if there hadn’t been a fire?  Rebecca

Dear Rebecca: The insurance company is avoiding payment for window damage on the basis of a slim technicality. They claim that the fire did not directly damage the windows. That may be true, but the window damage is an outcome of the overall situation.

While the house was stripped and unoccupied, the heating system was apparently not in use. Exposure to extreme cold and moisture altered the shape of the window frames and sash. The glass cracked due to stresses at the edges of the panes, and the frames became warped so that they no longer function properly.

When a home is occupied, the winter cold on the exterior of the building is offset by heat on the interior. The internal warmth prevents damage to the window glass and frames. While your home was unoccupied, the heat was turned off, as evidenced by ice on the interior. If a heat source had been maintained in the building, the window damage might have been avoided. Therefore, the window damage was an indirect consequence of the fire and should be covered by the insurance company. In fact, the insurance company should have known from experience that winter exposure to an abandoned building can cause further damage.