The basic idea of homeowner's insurance is to cover people for sudden, accidental types of damage to their property, mostly from outside sources. It is not meant to cover a home's inevitable aging and decay, nor wear and tear, nor damage due to a homeowner's own failure to care for the place.
That's understandable, considering that the homeowner's insurance carrier doesn't want to give homeowners any incentive to be lax. One could otherwise imagine situations where homeowners deliberately did inadequate "repairs," so as to trigger inevitable damage and then get coverage for, say, new flooring or a whole new set of cabinets.
As always, though, the language of insurance policies is easier to understand than to apply in real life. So, how does the lack of coverage for faulty workmanship actually play out?
For the answer, you'll need to start by reading the fine print within your policy, or what are known as "exclusions" or "limits." Let's take a look at the details.
Looking at the exclusions section of your policy, you'll likely notice that, rather than defining faulty workmanship, it includes a long list of every sort of word relevant to a badly done job: for instance, faulty, inadequate or defective planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting, design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction, or materials used in any of the above as well as maintenance.
The insurer is trying to make sure nothing gets left out, and indicate that any substandard work done on your home or property is not its problem.
As for who did the faulty job, it won't matter whether it was the homeowner, a repair person, or some other home contractor.
The straightforward exclusion cases are the ones where a homeowner tries to collect on insurance to cover the fixing of faulty workmanship. For example, if the roof was installed incorrectly and slides off the house, a straightforward reading of the policy will show that the insurance won't cover putting on a new roof.
Many insurance policies try to take this exclusion a step further, however, and refuse to cover additional damage set in motion or aggravated by faulty workmanship. As an example, let's say the lack of a roof leads to water or mold damage within the home. The technical term for this distinction is "excluded loss" versus "ensuing loss."
How far insurance carriers can go with this distinction may have already been the subject of court cases in your state. These cases can be factually complicated; for instance, what if a hailstorm happens to hit while the house is roofless, and hailstorms are covered by the insurance policy?
If a dispute over such issues arises with your homeowner's insurance, consult a lawyer. Regardless of what your insurer says, and depending on the facts of your case, a court might have a different idea of whether you're making two separate claims or a claim for ensuing damage based on faulty workmanship; or it might require the insurer to pay for ensuing damage regardless of faulty workmanship.
Given the probable refusal of your insurance company to cover repairs of shoddy work as well as the resulting damage, it's worth considering your options against the home contractor who did the work.
This doesn't necessarily mean a lawsuit should be your first step, particularly if the cost of the damage is less than you'd pay in attorney fees. Writing a letter demanding that the work be redone or asking for your money back might be a first step. Mediation is also a possibility if the contractor doesn't respond satisfactorily.
If, however, the damage is major, and traceable to the contractor's poor workmanship, definitely consult an experienced construction law attorney.
