var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
chipslave
May 1, 2009 3:54 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Ugh. I can't imagine. Dripping on my face. Ugh.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Inglix_the_Mad
May 1, 2009 9:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chipslave: Yeah, and it's not pleasant when you get it sprayed on you fresh either.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OPRAH
May 1, 2009 4:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chipslave:

If you ever want to relive this post, search \"OH MY GOD\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mrgenius
May 1, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OPRAH: I was good and ready to blame the OP until I read that it dripped on her FACE!


But really, wouldn't it raise red flags if you called an insurance company and requested coverage for \"blood and bodily fluid damage\"?


Me: \"Hi. I'd like to get a renter's insurance policy\"
Insurance Co: \"Sure, how much coverage\"
Me: \"I dunno, say $15k? And, in addition, to theft, fire and water damage, I'd like to be covered against damage from blood and other bodily fluids\"
Insuance Co: \"...\"
Me: \"Hello?\"
Insurance Co: \"Why would you need to cover against that?\"
Me: \"Erm... in case my upstair neighbor overdoses and his body decomposes and the fluids drip on my face and belongings while I am asleep\"
Insurance Co: \"...\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
tripnman
May 1, 2009 3:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As usual, coverage is denied until the media gets involved and the company faces extreme negative publicity. Coerced corporate ethics for the win!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
pcyr
May 1, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tripnman: I disagree. She had a named perils policy. Ergo, anything not specifically covered on the policy is excluded. If she wanted coverage for random things like this, she should have paid a few extra bucks and got an all risks policy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
almigi
May 1, 2009 8:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pcyr: I agree pcyr, knowing something about insurance myself, most renter's policies are \"named peril\" policies, and unfortunately, \"corpse leaking\" isn't one of them. This is why when you buy an insurance policy for your home or apartment, you should always try to get a \"all risk\" or \"open peril\" policy which would have covered this, and the price difference usually isn't too much.


The problem is when people are being advised by their agent to buy the higher coverage, they just blindly assume that he's tryng to raise their price to get a bigger cut himself. Then they wake up covered in dead body fluids....

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Quake 'n' Shake
May 1, 2009 3:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

...he said that there really isn't an insurance policy that covers corpse fluid damage. It just doesn't happen very often.

Makes sense to me. How many residents of \"Crackton\" have renter's insurance?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dangermike
May 1, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Quake 'n' Shake: But if it doesn't happen that often, they really ought to name it, cover it, and charge a couple bucks a month for it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 1, 2009 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you are interested in coverage for something like this ask your insurance agent if they offer Special Form coverage for your personal property. This will change your contents coverage to all risk (except for what is excluded). Corpse fluid would definitely not be excluded.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pb5000
May 1, 2009 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's understandable that corpse fluid is not a covered liquid, but still, you'd think they'd use a little common sense there?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 1, 2009 4:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pb5000:

What exactly is the common sense here? If she only had fire insurance, should they also cover a meteorite strike? She bought a limited policy that only provided protection against certain situations. Why in the world would she get more than what's covered and have that chalked up as 'common sense'?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pb5000
May 1, 2009 4:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henwy: Commons sense is that if she buys a policy that covers liquid damage to her stuff. Then liquid damages her stuff and they claim it's not one of the 17 pre-approved liquids. That they'd be able to look at the situation and make a decision based off of it. That yes, it doesn't make sense for the insurance company to pre-approve bodily liquid, since it's so rare of an occurrence, but just because it's not specifically mentioned in the 17, it would make sense to have it covered because liquid damage is still liquid damage.

It's idiocy reasons like that where people need to put labels on food telling people to take it out of the wrapper before consuming.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 1, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pb5000:

What insurance company sells 'liquid damage'? I've heard of flood insurance, but you're going to have to site the existence of this 'liquid insurance'. Is this if someone comes to your house and throws a bucket of orange juice through the window or something?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz
May 3, 2009 12:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henwy: Liquid Damage, huh? Sounds like a name for an energy drink! LIQUID DMG! IT'S ENERGY IN A CAN!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pcyr
May 1, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pb5000: I've never heard of a policy talking about \"liquids.\" Usually it's \"water,\" and how the water caused damage. If she wanted coverage for random things like this, she should have gotten an all risks policy; that way if it's not specifically excluded, it's covered.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
May 1, 2009 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seems like every day there's more and more circumstances insurance DOESN'T cover...

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
pcyr
May 1, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: I disagree. She had a named perils policy. Ergo, anything not specifically covered on the policy is excluded. If she wanted coverage for random things like this, she should have paid a few extra bucks and got an all risks policy. With an all risks policy, if it's not specifically excluded, then it's covered.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SybilDisobedience
May 1, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pcyr: pcyr, do you work for Farmer's or something? Not trying to be snarky. But you are awfully defensive of the insurance company.


(To clarify, I agree that she should have had an all-risks policy. It's just weird that you've decided to reply to every single critical post with the EXACT SAME COMMENT.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pcyr
May 2, 2009 5:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SybilDisobedience: I don't work for Farmer's. I don't even live in the US. And no, I haven't used the same reply for every critical post. I've replied to every post that makes the same uninformed comment (not realising the difference between all perils and specified perils) with the same comment. I don't see why I should have to type out a different reply for the same comment, just because it came from a different person.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lowercase
May 1, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SybilDisobedience: The people who post the exact same negative post obviously didn't read the ones above them, so they obviously won't have read his replies. I'm all for pcyr's clarifying as many times as necessary.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SybilDisobedience
May 1, 2009 7:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lowercase: Most of them are time-stamped within a few minutes of each other, so assuming one doesn't refresh after taking a few minutes to read the article and post a comment (like me, for instance), there may be other comments posted already that one hasn't seen yet. Just saying.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
so_gracefully
May 1, 2009 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Despite all of my logical inclinations, this is definitely going to be on my mind the next time I'm apartment-searching. I would rather carry my groceries upstairs than to never want to fall asleep because I fear corpse fluid dripping on me.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cafezinha
May 1, 2009 5:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@so_gracefully: I've always gone for the top floor when apartment hunting for security reasons (hooligans less likely to climb to my 3rd floor apartment) and noise reasons (nobody thumping over my head). I'm going to add \"no dead body goo on my face\" onto the pro list when I'm thinking of the con of having to lug the groceries for a family of 4 up the stairs.


What, no elevator? That's just fine! A little extra exercise > mental trauma from having your dead neighbor drip on you!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redskull
May 1, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@so_gracefully: Fluid, schmuid, at least her upstairs neighbor was quiet.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 1, 2009 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah--I'll be that guy: they shouldn't have covered the claim. The link to the news story gives a link to a copy of the actual rejection letter (with a poorly blacked out address, no less) and it includes the \"named perils\" the policy covers. Sad to say, this just isn't there. I know I'll get a lot of flak for this, but insurance premiums are contracts that are priced given the actuarial risk of the hazards cobvered, they aren't magical ATMs for when something terrible happens. Generally, I'm against the big, bad insurance company, but they got this one right the first time. As bad as I feel for this poor woman, there is absolutely no reason the insurance company should compensate her.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
May 1, 2009 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SharvaniHizat: Agreed, the policy is not a blanket policy. She should be filing a claim against the apartment complex or the estate for the damages ( yeah, that sucks too ).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Canino
May 1, 2009 4:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Better call my agent and have him add the Neighbor Liquification rider to my policy...

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 1, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Couldn't they just call it flood/water damage? It's basically the same.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
pcyr
May 1, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience: Insurance doesn't just have \"water damage\" coverage. It specifically breaks down how the water caused the damage. Unfortunately \"liquid escape from a decomposing corpse\" isn't usually listed on a named perils policy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 1, 2009 4:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pcyr: Yes. You've said this 9387598375359735397589375 times already. We get it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pcyr
May 2, 2009 5:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience: Actually, I said it 2 times already, but thanks for counting. I've said it below another few times because people keep saying the same uninformed comment. So while *you* may get it, obviously \"they\" don't. And as tc4b said, \"If you 'get it,' why'd you ask?\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
WolfBaconFlavorMANGURT_GitEmSteveDave
May 1, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"The smell is nothing like you've ever smelled before. It's not like a dead animal, it's not like rotten food or something.. it's just something beyond... You can't even describe it,\"

She is correct. A decaying corpse produces two amazing substances called Putrescine and Cadaverine. I only know that b/c I read an article on how they train corpse dogs. From what I read, the training material they use is triple bagged and sealed, yet once you get past the 1st seal, the smell will fill a room quickly.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
David in Brasil
May 2, 2009 9:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WolfBaconFlavorMANGURT_GitEmSteveDave: I remember an Organic Chemistry lab in college, back in the 70s, when we worked with putricene. I had a sinus infection, couldn't smell a thing, and so it didn't bother me. But right after the lab, I went to the school cafeteria where not only would none of my friends sit near me, but I was asked by the cafeteria administrator to leave, take a shower and change clothes before I could finish my dinner.

Must be some bad stuff!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SabyneWired
May 2, 2009 1:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WolfBaconFlavorMANGURT_GitEmSteveDave: I've done lots of work with patients in the hospital who have really bad wounds. While I'm not sure the smell is quite on par with that of a decomposing corpse, it gets really bad. When you walk by the hallway outside the room and can TASTE the stench, that's how you know the wound's pretty bad. Ugh.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
downwithmonstercable
May 1, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H1N1_GitEmSteveDave: Just the thought is absolutely disgusting. Man I'd had to be one of those dog trainers...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sean98125
May 1, 2009 4:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@downwithmonstercable: My brother and sister-in-law have trained search dogs for about ten years now. They have a freezer in the garage where they keep the \"training materials.\" They tend to use dirt that was recovered from under a corpse that was found after it had decayed for a bit.

The dogs are pretty amazing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WolfBaconFlavorMANGURT_GitEmSteveDave
May 1, 2009 5:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sean98125: My question is: If they are trained to find corpses, how do they reward them? I know if rescue dogs don't find alive people, they \"plant\" a volunteer victim to find. If a corpse dog fails to find a corpse, do they bump someone off?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AustinTXProgrammer
May 1, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Insurance policies vary by state, but in Texas we have two major home owners and renters policy categories.

The most common (but hasn't always) is a stated peril policy, and if it isn't listed its not covered.

The more expensive coverage has exclusions, and if its not listed and you suffer a loss of the covered property, it is covered.

The difference in cost between the policies can be over 50%.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pcyr
May 1, 2009 4:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AustinTXProgrammer: That's quite a difference. Here in Ontario very few companies even offer \"named perils\" coverage for residential properties. Those that do usually only offer a very small discount (~15%) for a named perils policy as opposed to an all risks policy.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
thisheregirafFe
May 1, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

why do i have this insatiable craving for chicken-in-a-can all of a sudden ??

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
donnie5
May 1, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thisheregirafFe:
You made me throw up through my eyeballs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
the_wiggle
May 3, 2009 4:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@donnie5: rotflmao! thank you for that image :)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
BrockBrockman
May 1, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

1. Her policy might cover damage due to illegal trespass. Neighbor's bodily fluids might count for that.


2. Next her med insurance will deny coverage for having to deal with the mental/emotional distress of having her liquefied neighbor's corpse dripping on her face.


3. BLECH!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
May 1, 2009 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I see dead peop-I mean Lawsuits against dead people.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dangermike
May 1, 2009 5:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowburnt: That's actually a fantastic idea. Sue the estate for damages. The damages rightfully were cause by the dead lady's actions. The building owner can probably get in on it, too. And then we can have another thread in a few more weeks about another heartless landlord looking to recoup their losses imposed by a deceased tenant. Those are always fun.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sir_pantsalot
May 1, 2009 4:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great now every time some rotting corpse drips through the floor and causes damages it will bankrupt all of the innocent insurance companies.

-Fat Bloated Insurance Dude

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
May 1, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder if they have insurance protecting you from denied insurance claims...*light bulb*

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Matthew Pettengill
May 1, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Did this really need to be posted at lunch time?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 1, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Matthew Pettengill: Since it was posted at about 9:30 AZ time ... it wasn't posted at lunch time here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WolfBaconFlavorMANGURT_GitEmSteveDave
May 1, 2009 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Matthew Pettengill: Wait, are you seeing pictures I'm not? I will admit there are some people who can eat while reading things like: \"Tissue Decomposition: A Homicide Primer\", and some that can not.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
May 1, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Matthew Pettengill: Well, it is breakfast time on the West coast. And coffee-break time in the Central and Mountain zones. As for the rest of the world, someone might have gotten up for a midnight snack and decided to check in here and yeah, so much for pleasant dreams.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
May 1, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Add this to the list when considering whether to rent or buy a home. Me glad I have a home (a detached home no less).

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
erratapage
May 1, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As an attorney, I'd love to read the entire policy to see how many of the stated perils this might fall under. Without reading the policy, it would be pretty hard to make any conclusion about Farmers. But, this might be the grossest cause of property damage I've ever heard of.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
CFinWV
May 2, 2009 1:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@erratapage: \"But, this might be the grossest cause of property damage I've ever heard of.\"

Tell me about it. I think waking up with it on your face is worse than the property damage. Hello counseling!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pcyr
May 1, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've seen a few comments on here basically saying that the insurance company is wrong/unethical/bad for not covering this. There is a very good reason why this isn't covered: She had a named perils policy.

With residential property insurance, there's typically two types of coverage: 1) Named Perils; 2) All Risks. (Wording may vary)

With a named perils policy, only what's specifically listed is covered. With an all risks policy, unless it's specifically excluded, it's covered.

This isn't \"water damage,\" as I don't think any policy has such wording. It's usually broken down to things like \"water seepage,\" \"water escape/rupture/freezing,\" \"sewer backup,\" etc.

Therefore, unless this type of incident is specifically listed on her policy, it would not be covered. If she wanted coverage for these odd things, she should have gotten an all risks policy. She didn't, so she's SOL. It's unfortunate and I feel bad for her, but it's not the insurance company's responsibility. Insurance deals with risks, and she chose to save some money by taking a higher risk of not being covered.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
sir_pantsalot
May 1, 2009 4:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pcyr: The human body is about 60%-70% water and this was seepage. I get your point but one could argue that it should be covered.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 1, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sir_pantsalot:

There's no evidence she even had water seepage as a listed peril. The article cites examples like fires and airplanes.

The end-run using your same logic is that it's not the water in the human body that would be the problem. It's all the rotting organic bits.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sir_pantsalot
May 1, 2009 5:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henwy: The insurance can replaced the things that got wet since most of it was water. Just because some other type of bits are also included does not make the water disappear.

Be careful what you say or the insurance companies might take note. Flood insurance will only cover H20 and if there is any dirt, sand, leaves or any other chemical element in the water the claim will be denied.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 1, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pcyr: Actually, this seems to fit the best: \"water seepage\"


It's liquid (maybe if they changed the wording to \"liquid\" instead of water, or added \"liquid seepage\") seeping in from the ceiling...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pcyr
May 2, 2009 5:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience: @sir_pantsalot: Actually, water seepage is never* a specified peril and is always* excluded on an all risks policy.

*can't say for sure as I haven't seen every policy out there, but I imagine there'd be few exceptions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 1, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pcyr: Yes, pcyr, we got it. The first 8 times you said it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pcyr
May 2, 2009 5:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience: Thanks nakedscience, I got it. The first time you said it. And I'll continue posting the same response to people who continue making the same uninformed comments.

Also, notice how I actually didn't exaggerate by saying you said it 20453453453 times, or that I speak for everyone else as you seem to claim?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kevjohn
May 1, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm guessing the bodily fluids the insurance companies are referring to are the more common ones, like urine. So if you throw a party and one of your frat buddies who hasn't quite grown up yet has one too many and takes a piss on your couch, it ain't the insurance folks' problem, it's yours.


(Wow, never in my life thought I would be semi-defending the insurance industry.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 1, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You know, legalizing cannibalism would solve 80% of these problems...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
juri squared
May 1, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: I prefer my meat fresher than that!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
I_have_something_to_say
May 1, 2009 4:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That would be a cool name for a hot sauce.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
stang
May 1, 2009 4:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Does the policy cover \"Acts of Nature\", if so, the policy should cover it, as decay of a corpse is a natural act.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chris_d
May 1, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Typical insurance company. I am going to spend some time today talking to the devil-- I mean Aetna. They decided my fiancee's medical claim wasn't something they should have to pay, because, well, they don't want to I guess. I need to double check their policy to make sure she did everything right, but I'm pretty sure she did.

Hey, did Aetna get nominated for worst company in America? If not, I'd like to nominate them for next year's award.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
tc4b
May 1, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you 'get it,' why'd you ask?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
henwy
May 1, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tc4b:

Reading comprehension failure, I'd imagine.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
usa_gatekeeper
May 1, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yep, right here in my homeowner's policy:

¶ XII.C.14.e[3]: We do not cover blood and bodily fluid damage to your belongings unless it can be proven the blood or bodily fluid came from Sasquatch or an officially recognized alien being, as defined elsewhere in this document.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PlanetExpressdelivery
May 1, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

For those of you who still believe that the renter's insurance should not cover her belongings because she either didn't have the right insurance or because \"bodily fluids\" isn't stated in her insurance, this article is a perfect example of why you read the whole article.

\"I ask Farmers Insurance spokesperson Jerry Davis, \"Have you ever heard of anything like this?\"

Davies says he doesn't know of any insurance company that covers bodily fluids.

I ask him, \"So there would've been no chance that she would've had coverage under any policy that exists out there, based on this unexpected circumstance?

\"That's correct,\" says Davies.

And because it was so random, something his colleagues collectively have only heard about once in decades on the job, Farmers changed its mind.

\"We are going to cover all of her contents,\" says Davies. \"

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pcyr
May 2, 2009 5:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PlanetExpressdelivery: shouldn't =/= not required.

The insurance company is not required to cover this, but that doesn't mean it's wrong if they do.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Sockatume
May 1, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"The Seventeen Named Perils\" sounds like a plot device from a horror novel.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Murph1908
May 1, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I worked at a zoo for a while in a research lab. We had a freezer full of mice waiting to be necropsied. The freezer failed, and wasn't discovered for an unknown amount of time...until the smell escaped the bags and the freezer seal.

Nothing you have experienced can prepare you for the smell of a fully decomposed corpse.

The animals near the top were nearly fully liquefied. It was the most horrible and powerful smell I have ever encountered.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
May 1, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Insurance by definition is protection for unforeseen events that damage your property. So if it is NOT excluded in the policy when she signed it, all damage should be covered. Insurance companies are weaseling their way out of business.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
David Schwartz
May 1, 2009 9:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid: @savdavid: It was excluded in the policy. She choose a named perils policy, and it wasn't one of the named perils.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pixel
May 1, 2009 5:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid: See earlier comments regarding \"Named Peril\" vs \"All Risk\" policies.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
baristabrawl
May 1, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

17 named perils? What are the other 16? And I think that they mean if they were YOUR fluids they would not be covered and when the policy was underwritten I think they meant like period blood, urine and possibly vomit.

She could probably prove that she did could not plan for this eventuality.

On a side note I'm sure there is a way to blame her for not living on the top floor.

That is all.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anathema777
May 1, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can't get the reply button to work. It seemed to work pretty damn well for pcyr...

Reply
1 replies
","","","
\"user-pic\"
adamczar
May 1, 2009 5:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've always requested the apartment on the top floor because it's less likely to have creepers looking on or attempted robberies. I suppose I can also say \"I'd rather not have a corpse drip on my from upstairs,\" too.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TheGuinnessTooth
May 1, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I WAS just about to start my lunch. Now the cottage cheese looks a whole lot less appealing.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
BuddyGuyMontag
May 1, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When I was in college, I was living in a 2 family house. I moved out, but I wanted to move back in because I got a job in the are a year later.


I found out the person in the apartment downstairs had passed... during the summer... and no one found him.


Gases collected in his chest cavity due to the heat and he basically... exploded.


After the biohazard teams finished up, I was hired for 3 months free rent to repaint the place.


Ironically, I used \"Kilz\".

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
shepd
May 1, 2009 5:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It might be tasteless, but she can always sue the estate. I bet she'd win, too.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
JGKojak
May 1, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So... your best friend gets drunk, spills a pitcher of water all over your plasma TV... covered.


Your best friend gets drunk and takes a piss all over your plasma TV... not.


Gotcha.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JiminyChristmas
May 1, 2009 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Renter's insurance is so ridiculously cheap it makes no sense to cheap out on it. You could easily get a policy that covers $25,000 worth of belongings for under $20/month. That said, $25,000 isn't necessarily a lot of coverage if you contemplate replacing every piece of furniture, article of clothing and all housewares you own. Not to mention things like tools, electronics, musical instruments, jewelry…

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jokono
May 1, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sean98125: Not to make light of the issue, but I did notice that you didn't call them search and rescue dogs. I guess these dogs are only looking (sniffing) for one thing.

Yes, they are amazing.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
May 1, 2009 6:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So they paid it after all? so now all renters' insurance policies will cover this type of thing?


I'm finally going to rent that room at the old folks home now!!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
consumerfan
May 1, 2009 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The deceased caused the damage, though I doubt it was intentional. You probably could pursue the estate of the deceased. If the deceased had home insurance, that would be covered under Personal Liability. (IANAL)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SugarMag
May 1, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I had the misfortune of finding a family member who had been dead for a week. The scent is indescrible as the article said. I can't compare it to anything.


It was in EVERYTHING and wouldn't come out even if washed. I have papers from inside the place and 15 years later I can still smell it in them.


I would move too if I were this lady. Even if the smell doesnt linger for some reason I would have the heebiejeebies to the nth degree.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
juri squared
May 1, 2009 6:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You know, my house needs tons of repairs and makes me dream of living in a building where I don't have to deal with replacing windows and such.

Suddenly, though, I am SO HAPPY that I'm in a single-family house. The worst we got was a dead bird.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
teke367
May 1, 2009 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Insurance laws generally state that if the contract is confusing, the insured gets the benefit of the doubt, because the insurer wrote the contract, and its up to them to make it clear.


Which is why coverage for contents is spelled out very clearly. Named Perils (covered only for these things), and all risk (covered for everything but these things). They don't leave a lot of room for interpretation.


If one could argue body fluids fit under something that is covered, perhaps they can use the \"contract isn't clear\" rule to get paid. Plus, there is a whole bunch of things called \"ensuing damage\" (not covered for floods, but if a flood causes a fire you are covered, etc) that perhaps they could argue.


Insurance companies lose most of their money from punitive damages. Paying billions for deny claims in the millions (or thousands). Some companies would pay just to get it over with.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
David Schwartz
May 1, 2009 9:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@teke367: That may work, though it's academic now since the insurance company agreed to cover this case already. For example, if the insurance covers, say, \"water seepage\", you can argue that the fluid seeped and is mostly water. You are quite correct that any ambiguities in the policy documentation will generally be construed in favor of the policy holder.

However, insurance companies are pretty good at making their fine print unambiguous.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Xay
May 1, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have never been happier to live in a 1 story apartment. I am also going to reread my renter's insurance policy.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
albokay
May 1, 2009 7:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you are putting in a claim because of dead junkie juice then you really need to move.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bluewyvern
May 1, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So glad I live on the top floor.

Means the only thing leaking in here is rain. Lots of it, though... :/

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PappaBear
May 1, 2009 8:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wouldn't damage caused by decomposing body fluid be considered a bio-hazard and therefore covered? Maybe Farmers Insurance should hire more competent actuaries.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Derek Balling
May 1, 2009 8:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It seems to me that one legitimate avenue of recourse might have been to sue the estate of the dead body for damages. (The deceased's final act was to cause damage, and the estate should be liable).

I agree with others that the insurance company should NOT have paid this. It wasn't a named peril, and that sucks, but if you want all-inclusive coverage, then you pay extra and get all-inclusive coverage.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ChaunceyReindeer
May 1, 2009 8:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Something very similar happened to my wife and I years ago in Manhattan. Our next door neighbor passed away and wasn't found for two weeks.

Long story, but bear with me.

He was a sweet guy, but a recluse, and we lived in a fireproofed, concrete high rise. We didn't smell anything till the porter went in to check on him. Once the door was opened the smell filled the floor and there was no ventilation for it to dissipate.

New York also has a little known law that will not allow ANYONE into the apartment before next of kin. The police went in, removed the body, then sealed the door with a huge label. No one was allowed to go in and cleanup the aftermath.

Our insurance company didn't even know where to start. Nothing in our apartment was actually damaged, but that odor just lingered and lingered. And yeah, you can't describe it. It's almost like a overpowering rotten fruit and meat smell. It's not nice.

The woman in the post was lucky that they even paid for her hotel stay.

We ended up moving two months later. The \"next of kin\" never came. Which is another sad story.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Tigerman_McCool
May 1, 2009 9:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I mean, c'mon, who hasn't had a little corpse fluid drip on their face? What's the big deal?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 1, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So, lets say you did want to make sure you were covered for that kinda stuff by your insurence company. How exactly do you word it to your broker? \"Ummm, yeah...I'd like to make sure I'm covered for decomposing bodies rotting through my ceiling? I'd appriciate it if you didn't ask any questions, thanks.\"

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ourufnek99
May 1, 2009 9:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am an adjuster, and there are two kinds of policies, an all peril policy that covers everything except those specifically excluded such as war, flood, etc... A named peril policy only covers those perils that are named, usually fire, lightning, theft. In a named peril policy, if the damage is not caused by the a named peril policy then there is nothing that can be done.

Named peril policies are cheaper, so make sure price is not your only consideration when you are buying a policy.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
May 1, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ BuddyGuyMontag: I read this book one time where cops were telling stories about the job and they said that when they got a \"popper,\" they'd send a rookie in and they'd all stand around outside and wait for him/her to come out and puke.

Cops have weird humor.

PS - Kilz is great stuff.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SamDFA
May 1, 2009 11:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Get an \"All-perils\" policy. They exist, ask an independent agent. Esp. if you are in NC

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RedwoodFlyer
May 1, 2009 11:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

At my former stint with the NTSB, I had the misfortune of visiting burning carnage.... the only thing worse than decomp. corpses...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Robert House
May 1, 2009 11:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think I'd rather take it against the estate of instead of my own policy... but then again it's probably very unlikely the estate of someone who just o.d.'d is going to have much. Now going against the suicide's liability policy may work.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
crazydavythe1st
May 2, 2009 3:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I bet it smells a little like the ground turkey I accidentally left on the counter while I was on vacation for two weeks.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
orlo
May 2, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@crazydavythe1st: Only if you were planning on eating 200lbs of it

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Chizzer
May 2, 2009 2:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have to side with the insurance company on this one. If the agreement (and payment) between the customer and the company does not include insurance for particular situations, then why should those situations be covered?

If I have a manufacturer's warranty on my vehicle's powertrain, should GM also be responsible to fix the dents in my door?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
whereismyrobot
May 3, 2009 1:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

nightmare fuel

Reply
","");