Good points overall, but I'd push back a bit on the mold issue:
"Insurers love to argue mold is a maintenance issue, not construction-related damage."
True, insurers often default to that stance, but in my experience, mold can sometimes be successfully argued as construction-related if you can clearly link it to specific design or build defects. Had a project where inadequate flashing and poor drainage detailing led directly to moisture buildup and mold growth. We documented everything meticulously—photos, site reports, even weather logs—and eventually got the insurer to cover remediation costs. It wasn't easy, but it was doable.
Also, regarding policy expiration dates—agreed they're critical—but I've found insurers can sometimes be flexible if you communicate proactively about delays. Had a project run over by several months due to permitting issues; we negotiated an extension rider mid-project. Cost us a bit extra, sure, but it kept coverage intact. Always worth asking rather than assuming they'll deny outright...
Good insights here. My experience with mold claims has been mixed:
- Had one case similar to yours—poor venting design in a bathroom caused moisture buildup behind drywall. We documented the heck out of it (photos, contractor notes, etc.) and eventually convinced the insurer it was construction-related.
- But another time, despite clear evidence of improper window flashing, they dug in their heels and insisted it was homeowner neglect. Ended up splitting remediation costs just to move forward.
"Always worth asking rather than assuming they'll deny outright..."
Definitely agree—doesn't hurt to push back a bit.
Definitely agree it's worth pushing back. I've found insurers often start with a default "no," but if you can clearly show them a direct link to faulty workmanship or design, they sometimes reconsider. Had a roof leak once where the initial response was "maintenance issue," but after we pulled detailed photos and contractor statements showing improper flashing installation, they eventually came around. Documentation and persistence usually pay off...though, admittedly, not every time.
"Documentation and persistence usually pay off...though, admittedly, not every time."
True enough. I've had insurers flip their stance once we showed clear evidence of improper framing causing drywall cracks. But honestly, sometimes it's just luck of the draw with adjusters—some are reasonable, others dig their heels in no matter what you show them.
Have you noticed if adjusters tend to be more flexible when there's a third-party expert involved, like an engineer or inspector? I've seen mixed results myself—sometimes it helps smooth things over, other times it just complicates things further...
