Insured had a ceiling fall down in a rental unit in Washington DC. The building was built in the late 1940s with plaster ceilings; about a third fell down for no apparent reason. There was no water or vermin or decay. There is an upstairs unit (3 story, 4 unit apt bldg). Travelers declined coverage due to age and faulty fasteners. This is the first time this building has suffered a loss; no rust or water issues. The adjuster says the loss is not covered due to age/wear and tear/faulty fasteners. I disagree, as the building is in excellent shape with no signs of age.

Maryland Subscriber

The burden of proof is on the insurer to prove that the cause of loss was wear and tear. The fasteners were out of visibility to the insured and thus they are not a defect that would bar coverage under the defect exclusion. If there were no visible signs of water or other damage, and the insured properly maintained the structure, then there would be no indication to the insured that the ceiling was pending a collapse and thus there should be coverage. To simply base the exclusion on the age of the structure is not sufficient to apply the wear and tear exclusion.