joshuaharkoos
New member
Hello!
I have a question regarding new home warranty coverage in BC. Technically it's supposed to be a warranty, rather than insurance but they're all insurance companies that provide the warranty so I think this is the right sub-reddit. Please redirect if I'm wrong.
In the recent (very unusual) winter cold weather in Vancouver, a fire suppressant sprinkler pipe froze, and subsequently burst in our newly built and purchased home (4 years old). The pipe runs from inside the mechanical room (inside a crawl space), up through the ceiling of the crawl space, between the inside/outside walls, and then eventually feeds the rest of the sprinklers on the inside of the home. The pipe burst at the point where outside air mixes with inside air in the crawl space (between the ceiling the gap in the walls). I am avoiding using the term "building envelope" as that will come into play later.
Long story short: We were home, we mitigated damage using a restoration company immediately (after-hours call), a plumber and the restoration both determined it wasn't insulted properly (insulation put on the wrong side of the pipe), and the builders actually came to address the issue. The problem is, we don't think the builders properly addressed it (outdoor/indoor temperature differential too high, ceiling wasn't properly finished, etc.).
We decided we should contact our home warranty to get the issue at the very least inspected, and if it turned out we were correct, have it resolved properly. When we sent the information to our home warranty, the response we got was this:
Additional definitions from the policy (which they have omitted from their response):
"Defects In The Building Envelope" means defects that result in the failure of the Building Envelope to perform its intended function;
In my mind, there is no way an interior pipe freezing & bursting is not a failure of the "building envelope". That said, when explaining this to the insurance company on the phone they seemed pretty confident this doesn't fall within the warranty. I have not written a formal dispute, and before I do so, I thought I would ask this reddit:
I did contact BC Housing and got the affirmation that "water penetration" is not the sole reason for a building envelope failure, and the term " including a Defect which permits unintended water penetration..." does not mean "including but limited to".
With all that information, here are the questions for answers that I'm after:
Do I misunderstand what a building envelope is? Would it not include the necessity to prevent pipes from freezing?
Am I misinterpreting the response which says "no evidence of water penetration at this time". So they are rejecting it based on there currently being no issue -- but wouldn't that always be the case, regardless of repair?
Should I dispute this?
What happens if we pay for our own inspection and it turns out we are correct?
Thanks so much for your time!
I have a question regarding new home warranty coverage in BC. Technically it's supposed to be a warranty, rather than insurance but they're all insurance companies that provide the warranty so I think this is the right sub-reddit. Please redirect if I'm wrong.
In the recent (very unusual) winter cold weather in Vancouver, a fire suppressant sprinkler pipe froze, and subsequently burst in our newly built and purchased home (4 years old). The pipe runs from inside the mechanical room (inside a crawl space), up through the ceiling of the crawl space, between the inside/outside walls, and then eventually feeds the rest of the sprinklers on the inside of the home. The pipe burst at the point where outside air mixes with inside air in the crawl space (between the ceiling the gap in the walls). I am avoiding using the term "building envelope" as that will come into play later.
Long story short: We were home, we mitigated damage using a restoration company immediately (after-hours call), a plumber and the restoration both determined it wasn't insulted properly (insulation put on the wrong side of the pipe), and the builders actually came to address the issue. The problem is, we don't think the builders properly addressed it (outdoor/indoor temperature differential too high, ceiling wasn't properly finished, etc.).
We decided we should contact our home warranty to get the issue at the very least inspected, and if it turned out we were correct, have it resolved properly. When we sent the information to our home warranty, the response we got was this:
Additional definitions from the policy (which they have omitted from their response):
"Defects In The Building Envelope" means defects that result in the failure of the Building Envelope to perform its intended function;
In my mind, there is no way an interior pipe freezing & bursting is not a failure of the "building envelope". That said, when explaining this to the insurance company on the phone they seemed pretty confident this doesn't fall within the warranty. I have not written a formal dispute, and before I do so, I thought I would ask this reddit:
I did contact BC Housing and got the affirmation that "water penetration" is not the sole reason for a building envelope failure, and the term " including a Defect which permits unintended water penetration..." does not mean "including but limited to".
With all that information, here are the questions for answers that I'm after:
Do I misunderstand what a building envelope is? Would it not include the necessity to prevent pipes from freezing?
Am I misinterpreting the response which says "no evidence of water penetration at this time". So they are rejecting it based on there currently being no issue -- but wouldn't that always be the case, regardless of repair?
Should I dispute this?
What happens if we pay for our own inspection and it turns out we are correct?
Thanks so much for your time!