2. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following d. (5) Insects, birds, rodents or other animals

The insurer is denying this claim because of this exclusion. I believe this is incorrect for a number of different reasons. First, later editions of the Causes of Loss – Special Form CP 10 30 06 95 and all editions following have the following language:

2. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following d. (5) Nesting or infestation, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions, by insects, birds, rodents or other animals

It seems to me ISO's intent was that which is indicated in the 1995 edition and not the 1991 edition. Granted the 1991 language seems clear that no damage caused by animals is covered, but I do not believe that was the intent of ISO since in the 1995 version they clarified the language in the exclusion above. Second, in my research, everything I find references this set of exclusions as the "wear and tear" exclusions. However, the outline used by ISO is not clear as to whether all of the exclusions indicated under d. are related to "wear and tear". If that was the intent of ISO, the outline should have been as follows:

D. Wear and tear

1. Rust etc

2. Smog

3. Settling etc……

Third, humans are animals. With that in mind, a literal interpretation of the exclusion as used by this carrier denying this claim, would mean that if a human had broken through this door and destroyed the interior of the building there would be no coverage.

I think the carrier is misunderstanding this exclusion.

Your thoughts? Do you know of any court cases that support my position?

As always I greatly appreciate your willingness to help.

Virginia Subscriber

We pulled the original circular dated 1995 that explained the changes in the 'ensuing loss' provisions by stating that the changes were made to clarify the original intent of the exclusions.

Originally, the exclusion read, "Insects, birds, rodents, or other animals."

Obviously, the intent of the amended exclusion was to exclude the nesting or infestation, or the discharge or release of, waste products or secretions of these insects, birds, rodents or other animals.

Therefore, in a loss for "a deer ran through the glass at the front of the building. Damage to the floors and blood throughout the building", is that the floor damage from the deer would be covered but the damage from the secretion of blood would be excluded.

Update 11/6/19: Upon further review and discussion, it was the consensus of the experts that the entire loss should be covered. The loss of blood from the deer was not a 'secretion'; sweat, saliva, tears are secretions, but blood from a wound is not a secretion. As such, no part of the exclusion would apply to this loss.