I was just curious how an insurance company would see that if the gas line breaks, and downed power lines that sparked the fire were the result of a major flood - as is apparently the case in this particular fire.
I don’t think that acts of God will be covered. Most likely they will be paid by Uncle Sugar with disaster relief. It is going to take a long time for all these folks to recover from the loss. Prayers up for the victims.
Good Question. It depends on what caused the damage first. For example, if the flood had already destroyed the house, then it doesn’t matter what else happened. If the the house wasn’t destroyed by the flood and fire ensued, then fire is the cause of loss. You can also say the wind caused the power lines to arc or blow over and that caused the fire. Wind is a covered loss in most areas. This was an issue in Katrina and also in the last two big Earthquakes in California when the argument was over if wind caused the damage in Katrina before flooding, or if the fires caused the damage in California instead of the earthquake. The Earthquake caused gas mains to rupture, but the fire caused the loss, so in many cases, Homeowners policies protected the owners. You can bet the Insurance companies will argue the homes were already effectively destroyed by the flood first.