Mitigation Expenses Coverage

We would like to address a question that comes up continually with insurance companies. On landscaping and coverage B items, some adjusters interpret the policy as paying for items damaged only as a direct loss from the fire or covered peril. However the policy also states that it is the insured's responsibility to mitigate further damage. In that respect if there is landscaping, fencing, brick walkways, etc. that would be damaged in the demolition of the property and in order to prevent that damage the insured must move said items, should that cost not be covered? If they do not cover the cost to move and protect and replace these items and they are damaged due to consequences surrounding the covered peril, should the insurance cover the cost to replace? It is our position that one or the other should be covered, either the cost to move, protect and put back or the cost to replace.

Indiana Subscriber

Couch on Insurance 168:11 states that to be recoverable, the mitigation expenses must relate to a covered loss, either existing, or imminent. Couch 178:10 states that the general principles in mitigating losses are for the insured to prevent or minimize a loss for which the carrier would have been liable.

I think the adjusters are looking for coverage in the wrong place; they're looking at coverage B, which does state that coverage is for direct loss. However the mitigation costs are a separate reimbursement after the loss and are separate repair expenses. The policy doesn't state that mitigation has to be from the original loss, just mitigation of future damages since the property has been damaged by a loss. If the roof burns it must be covered to prevent rain from coming in and damaging more property; the rain is not the same cause of loss, but it would cause damage. Therefore, if in making repairs the shrubs would be damaged, moving them is mitigation of the loss.