Under Personal Auto ISO form PP 00 01 06 98, adjuster is denying a claim for mold damages to the inside of a pristine older convertible in storage and using "wear and tear" as the exclusion for other than collision (comprehensive) coverage. While I am inclined to think that most property insurance wants to prevent coverage for this kind of thing and that there is probably good reason to deny coverage, I am uncomfortable with how it is being denied. The car was stored in a garage during a very wet, hot, humid part of last summer which is the suspected reason for the mold forming. Does wear and tear suffice for excluding coverage in your opinion?

Ohio Subscriber

The mold was caused by moisture and humidity. This is not the same as wear and tear since neither of those things causes mold. The wear and tear exclusion applies to damage to a car that occurs from use and usually occurs over time as the car ages; the normal result of using the car. But, mold damage is not the normal result of using the car. So, we do not see the wear and tear exclusion applying in this instance. Moreover, there is no exclusion in the PAP for damage caused by mold or moisture and there are no other exclusions that would prevent coverage in this instance.