OT, but legal application needed

[4honor]

State is WA

Renter's Insurance policy on personal property states "We do not insure you against loss of or damage to covered property resulting directly or indirectly from any of the following...

(4) Wear and tear, deterioration, mechanical breakdown, inherent vice, latent or patent defect, rust, mold, wet or dry rot, insects or vermin. "

 I had a water loss at my rented premises where the water pressure in the supply line to my washing machine ruptured at the bib soaking the entire premises in 3" deep water.

 QUESTION:

1. If the cause of the loss is found to be contractor error or a missing regulator (faulty work product?) do the terms LATENT DEFECT make it possible for my insurance company to deny my claim for damages to my personal property? or am I misunderstanding the term "latent defect"?

[socrateaser]

> QUESTION:
>
>1. If the cause of the loss is found to be contractor error or
>a missing regulator (faulty work product?) do the terms LATENT
>DEFECT make it possible for my insurance company to deny my
>claim for damages to my personal property? or am I
>misunderstanding the term "latent defect"?

You don't claim defect. You claim accident. The line burst for no apparent reason, and the damage was instantaneous, right? Insurance pays for accidental damage that occurs immediately, and not as the result of process, like a leak or mold.

If your insurance company refuses to pay, then you may need to sue the landlord for negligence or the manufacturer of the hose for product liability. Or, you could sue the insurance company for breach of contract, assuming that you can find an expert who will testify that the hose appears to have split due to a defect.

The point is that defect or not, the insurance company will only pay the claim if the damage was the result of something that happened instantaneously. So, if the line was old and it ripped because it was worn, then you're screwed. But, if the line was plyable and in apparently good condition, and it ripped because of no obvious reason or was just defective manufacture, then you're ok. The claim is not to pay for the defect. It's to pay for the loss caused as a consequence of the defect.