Nationwide is not on our side

[bobinraymoremo]

I just got off the phone with Nationwide Insurance and they have denied any coverage for our black tank overflowing into the bathroom and up the vent and into the ceiling. They will send a letter but reviewed it over the phone. Denied for two reasons; mechanical failures and improper maintenance. There were two mechanical failures they stated; the vent not properly fitted to go all the way to the roof and because the check valve below the toilet did not work properly. I told them this was an RV toilet and not a home toilet and that there is no check valve. Was told this would not matter because of the other mechanical problem which is true, it should have gone out to the roof. The improper maintenance is leaving the water running after a black tank flushing. I told when I called in the claim that I thought I turned off the water but my improper maintenance leaving the water on and exiting the scene led to the loss which they will not pay for.

He also said that no insurance company would ever pay for this type of loss.

Thoughts, besides getting a new insurance company.

[cjoseph]

If I leave my bathtub running and the overflow doesn't handle the volume of water, I'm SOL?

Accidents happen, that's what insurance is for.

The vent is not for the discharge of sewage. It is not a pathway for liquid. It is not an overflow. It was working perfectly fine. I'm sure air was passing quite well.

I say BS on your company. Who's to say the weight of the liquid didn't cause the vent stack to slip down. It wasn't designed to hold the weight of sewage.

If they will cover your "stupidity" (sorry), they have to recant the maintenance rejection.

I don't know how many vent stacks will hold the weight of sewage without slipping a little. They aren't put in that solidly.

Good luck to you.

[Sledge_Hammer]

Super_Dave wrote:
"Accidents" might be better defined as action outside your control. Somewhere in the fine print, I'm sure the policy says it doesn't cover "stupid". When I do something that qualifies as, "stupid", I'm pretty prepared to have to pay for it myself.

I am a retired (last August) Director of claims. Insurance does cover stupid, as most accidents would fall into this range. The policy likely provides all risk coverage, thus there must be a specific exclusion to exclude coverage. Insurance companies have a lot of new trainees and often they are over exuberant. Raise the issue to the next level and if not satisfied take it to your States Insurance Department for a formal complaint. If the Insurance Department agrees that there is no coverage, than that is the way it is and no other company is likely to have coverage either. In a typical home owners policy, water which backs up through sewers and drains is a specific exclusion. Quoting the mechanical break down exclusion seems odd in this case, but the details might indicate otherwise. If it was a mechanical breakdown and it wasn't due to poor maintenance, then the manufacturer should take care of the issue. Continue to push the issue.

[Pauljdav]

Often there is an OOPPS clause. I would get mor information and discuss with others.

Insurance companies are in it for themselves and do use anything we say against us in a claim.


Good luck.

Paul

[midnightsadie]

theres good and not so good answers. if it was me I,d call back and want to speak to some one that knows rv,s . I,m real lucky ,MY agent would be handling this. I live in a small town. and I,ve done a stupid thing couple times. agent says ,don,t worry I,LL HANDLE IT. and he did.quote after all that,s my job.

[laknox]

Super_Dave wrote:
"Accidents" might be better defined as action outside your control. Somewhere in the fine print, I'm sure the policy says it doesn't cover "stupid". When I do something that qualifies as, "stupid", I'm pretty prepared to have to pay for it myself.

At the same time, if you put your car in D when you meant R, I'd be willing to bet that your car and/or homeowner's insurance would cover you. That's pretty "stupid", IMO. 🙂 I think I'd fight this one all the way. At minimum, I'd say, "show me the specific fine print" =and= compare it to my last printed copy. I've known a couple people who've had terms changed on them without notice, then had the company deny a claim based on the =new= terms. If the company were any kind of customer-service friendly, they'd pay the claim, then go after the manufacturer.

Lyle

[bfast54]

Yep.....Note to self....is what you need to do now......NEVER do this again....

Lessen learned?????????

[Klueck]

I used to be an insurance adjuster, and yes, we do pay for stupid. I'm not calling you stupid, so please don't take offense. I'm not exactly sure what happened, but if you leave the car in neutral and it rolls down into a swimming pool, it would be covered. Yes, it might have been stupid, but it would have been covered. It was sudden and accidental. A maintenance issue is not sudden and accidental.

Again, I do not know the whole story, but from the little I read it sounds like they might be correct to deny the claim. If you don't feel they are being fair, you could certainly ask to have the claim reviewed. Read your policy and try to understand the exclusions portion. Then get a good understanding of what actually caused the problem. You might be able to determine if coverage should apply or not. Just because it was denied once, doesn't mean you can't dispute it. Good luck.

[Hondavalk]

Super_Dave wrote:
"Accidents" might be better defined as action outside your control. Somewhere in the fine print, I'm sure the policy says it doesn't cover "stupid". When I do something that qualifies as, "stupid", I'm pretty prepared to have to pay for it myself.

Not to sure about that definition of an accident. I believe it's the intent that defines wether it's an accident or not. In cars people turn into your path, back into you, run into you, all events that were in there control. I gotta believe most insurance claims are paying for stupid.

[dahkota]

My manual states not to leave the gate closed when flushing the black tank and not to leave the water running unattended. In fact, I think both are on a sticker stuck right next to the flush hook up. You must have been gone a while...

I would chalk it up to a learning experience and move on...

[wildtoad]

I agree with Nationwide on this one seems like a self inflicted wound.

[Denny___Jami]

Super_Dave wrote:
"Accidents" might be better defined as action outside your control. Somewhere in the fine print, I'm sure the policy says it doesn't cover "stupid". When I do something that qualifies as, "stupid", I'm pretty prepared to have to pay for it myself.

2X

Denny

[Super_Dave]

"Accidents" might be better defined as action outside your control. Somewhere in the fine print, I'm sure the policy says it doesn't cover "stupid". When I do something that qualifies as, "stupid", I'm pretty prepared to have to pay for it myself.

[Swamp_Man]

This really depends on what your policy says. Read it closely and see what exclusions are included. I have seen in my law enforcement days, where insurance companies paid for cars, damage, and repairs where a car was driven through a garage wall and into a swimming pool. But, with extended warranties, you have to read the exclusions. The vent pipe not going through the roof is a manufacturing defect. No a maintenance issue in IMO.

Leaving the water on in the black tank flush is an accident. Insurance is supposed to cover accidents. If everyone was perfect and we lived in a perfect world, we would not need insurance.