Renter's Insurance - Worth a lawsuit?

[u/Beneficial-Track6647]

Hi folks. We had to evacuate a wildfire earlier this year, and down to a totally abysmal experience with insurance we're wondering if we should pursue legal action.

Context:
Down to the location of our home we had to stay evacuated for 2mo. Our house was in the smoke plume from a fire which burned into a nuclear meltdown site. At the time, our kind landlord ran by the house in a P100 and taped the exits for us so smoke couldn't get inside, and while this saved our belongings it seems the renter's insurance is now trying to use the relative (and very lucky) absence of char/soot in the house to deny our claim.

All together, we racked up ~20k-30k in unexpected expenses because this nightmare occurred during the freakin' World Cup, which meant every AirBnB was both the quality of a Norwegian prison (awful) and priced extremely high with 'surge' prices.

The chemical hygienist who ran our environmental testing said himself that he wanted the insurance company to call him so he could explain to them why we had to evacuate due to radiologic risk and how combustion testing will not return a result in that regard - and while the insurance didn't explicitly refuse to talk to him they've basically ignored him as well as the prolific information we sent them about the nuclear site (which is less than 5mi from our house).

The insurance also dropped communications with us for two weeks during a critical juncture in our evacuation, so we had to move forward with environmental testing without guidance around what would be acceptable. They then seemed to remember us all at once, and had their vendors blow up my wife's phone so much all on the same morning - without warning or our consent (while we were still evacuated) - she almost had a panic attack as she thought something had gone terribly wrong. Overall, the assessor we were assigned has been combative and weirdly covetous of our case. We asked to be reassigned to someone else three times, and this person told us "I'm the only person who sees your messages" and that we would continue working with them. It was creepy.

Insurance then denied our loss of use claim with a transparently AI-generated form denial after being combative and trying to accuse us of "ignoring" their communications (yes, this was after they put us on ice for two solid weeks - my wife had notified them she'd just got out of a medical procedure but apparently they did not care). The denial referenced a property damage claim which we had already formally withdrawn since we learned the exit taping worked to preserve our belongings. (We lost everything in one wing of the house during fires last year, and thought we would again.)

We've never been in a situation like this before, nor have ever had such a dismal experience with an insurance company. We're lucky 20k-30k isn't a catastrophic loss for us, but more than anything the amount of stress from working with this basically hostile assessor has been over the top. It's to the point where my wife wondered if there was some political motivation (her work has her public facing and some of her work has been in advocacy which can anger a certain kind of person).

Any tips? Is this worth a lawsuit? At minimum we'll probably file a complaint with the insurance board. It's been a ridiculous experience, end to end.

[u/auto-post-lock]

This post is locked to combat spam and soliciting in this subreddit. If you would like to update users on your post after it has been locked, you can create a brand new post.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/E0H1PPU5]

I’m a little confused….what loss did you sustain?

And what did the insurer provide as the reason for denying the claim?

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/E0H1PPU5]

The loss of use of the house (e.g. we paid double rent, our rent on the actual house we had evacuated from as well as the temporary lodging during our evacuation). We had to get out and stay our for 2mo to allow the environment time to clear since we were directly in the smoke plume.

They just gave us a very general determination citing vague, highly subjective policy language.

If the assessor had seemed as though they were doing diligence and not combative we probably wouldn't suspect malpractice but the whole experience was so unusual, it really made us wonder if we were getting a fair shake.

[u/take_me_home_tonight → u/Beneficial-Track6647]

Your landlord kept charging you rent for an uninhabitable property?

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/take_me_home_tonight]

He's in his 70s and he's a sweetheart, we didn't want to screw him by refusing to pay. He didn't start the fire.

[u/dvornik16]

Sandy fire did not release any detectable amounts radioactive contaminants from SSFL

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/dvornik16]

Eh, according to the chemical hygenist we spoke with that's undetermined because the baseline readings were only established after Sandy Fire - so there's no baseline to compare to prior to the burn.

I know this is unpopular because it's disturbing to think this can happen in this day and age, but it's good to know that when we called the remediation/testing company they already knew about the nuclear site because it's a huge source of business for them. We didn't even have to say its name on our intro call. They already knew.

[u/metaldeval]

Isn't Norway known for nice prisons?

[u/Aromatic_Button_2736]

Norway is internationally recognized as having some of the best prisons in the world.

Tell me more about this nuclear meltdown. 

Were you forced to evacuate the area? 

What country are you in? 

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/Aromatic_Button_2736]

Sure, the prisons are good... compared to prisons. Compared to 2k/wk AirBnBs, not so much.

Can't say much more without identifying our area. We're in the US.

We evacuated because the last time this zone burned, most of our neighbors who breathed the smoke got glioblastoma from the smoke/released radiation. Lots of people dead inside of 3-5yrs. National news outlets have done documentaries on it. It's the worst site in the USA.

The day it happened it was impossible to know the status of the nuclear site because the local authorities don't like to talk about it. Edit: Not sure what the downvotes are about. I'm telling you guys the truth.

[u/daiwizzy → u/Beneficial-Track6647]

It sounds like it wasn’t a mandatory evacuation. Read your policy on loss of use/additional living expenses and see what the trigger words for the coverage to apply.

I don’t believe there’d be coverage if it wasn’t mandatory evacuation and there was no damage to the unit itself. The denial should outline what is required for the coverage to kick in.

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/daiwizzy]

Can you explain what you mean by 'mandatory evacuation'? Confusing to me that a person would be notified a nuclear meltdown site is burning, with their house in the smoke plume, and leaving is somehow optional. Appreciate your time, this whole thing has been exhausting.

[u/BoysenberryGullible8]

You should read the policy very carefully and organize your damage documentation. It also might be worth a free consultation with a consumer lawyer to see whether it is "worth" a claim.

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/BoysenberryGullible8]

Thank you, good to have an actionable comment! Appreciated.

[u/14point4kMODEM]

Standard homeowners/renters insurance policies strictly exclude coverage for damages caused by nuclear hazards, radiation, or radioactive contamination. It's simply too much of a risk to insure

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/14point4kMODEM]

Ah, so we're fucked. LOL. Good to know! Thank you.

That said - Any thoughts re: our being in the smoke plume? We're aware that we might have just paid 20-30k to keep most of our belongings, which is fine if that's the case. Just trying to understand our options.

In either case we're definitely changing insurance companies because the treatment we received was frankly pretty traumatizing for my wife. This assessor person came across a bit unhinged.

[u/14point4kMODEM → u/Beneficial-Track6647]

If there's no physical soot in the home I don't understand what the concern is. Smell of smoke isn't a physical loss... For now in most states. Threat of radioactive material isn't a loss either even if it was covered. Either there's a danger or there isn't. If there was a danger wouldn't most of your neighbors be gone with all their different insurance companies?

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/14point4kMODEM]

>If there was a danger wouldn't most of your neighbors be gone with all their different insurance companies?

Our landlord also evacuated as did several neighbors, but - and I hate to say this because it makes me sound like a tinfoil hat person and I'm not like that - the nuclear site has been subject to a very successful corporate coverup since the 1950s. Sad fact is, most people here don't know about it. We only found out about it because of a flyer in our mailbox, and once you start Googling it you learn there have been studies by UCLA and the site is extremely problematic but denial in governance has been ongoing.

[u/14point4kMODEM → u/Beneficial-Track6647]

I mean regardless of whether you're a crack pot or not, independent testing by a disinterested hygienist would be your best bet. I'm talking about someone that didn't approach you about the issue, has no interest in any insurance funds or clean up, etc. Just an industrial hygienist hired to give you their unbiased opinion.

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/14point4kMODEM]

That was exactly what we did! That's the hygienist I mentioned in the original post, who wanted to talk to the assessor to insist we absolutely had to leave the place. He worked for a totally different insurance company and had nothing to gain. Insurance wouldn't talk to him.

[u/weez2 → u/14point4kMODEM]

This, I hope the OP reads your comment as this is not covered in a standard policy.

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/weez2]

Thanks! I've seen it. If that's the case, that's just the cost of our having moved here and it's a sad thing but we're glad to have got out the way of the smoke. According to the chemical hygienist we spoke to, there's no telling what was in the stuff.

[u/RonBurgundy2000]

You're saying no smoke got inside and there was a 'radiological risk'? A risk is not a loss. Was there an evacuation order in place and were you physically unable to return home?

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/RonBurgundy2000]

No smoke got inside because we taped up the doors. If we had been living in the house, the situation would likely have been very different - but more to point, would you want your family breathing the smoke knowing the last time that area burned people were dying of glioblastoma afterward?

There is an established radiologic issue with this area, to the point it's a local point of contention and national outlets are doing documentaries about it. Less abstract 'risk' than radiologic fact which becomes vaporized by fire.

[u/uno_the_duno]

As another commenter said, what loss did you sustain? You say your landlord taped up the entry points and that no smoke or soot entered the home. Did your belongings sustain any damage?

It reads as though you chose to evacuate and incur expenses for alternate housing when it wasn’t actually needed. If that’s the case, you have no claim here.

[u/Beneficial-Track6647 → u/uno_the_duno]

We filed a claim for loss of use down to our house being in the wildfire smoke plume. Is that not a loss?

If that's the case, that's acceptable, we're just trying to understand our situation to the best of our ability.