State Farm’s promoting paints a comforting image for householders. On its web site, the corporate reassures policyholders that water injury is “usually lined” when a pipe bursts, when ice dams kind, or when a sewer backs up with the fitting endorsement. The “not usually lined” record sounds simple and consists of flood, floor water, tidal surge, or sewer back-up with out the endorsement. It seems to be a easy dividing line, with many possible deciphering it as overlaying regular family plumbing mishaps however not large-scale pure disasters.
Inside courtrooms the place State Farm is combating water loss claims throughout the nation, the fact appears to be like nothing like that neat little record on its web site promoting. A current instance is an Arkansas case. 1 State Farm satisfied a court docket that a number of exclusions, by no means talked about in its consumer-facing advertising and marketing, worn out any likelihood of protection. What’s lacking from the web site in comparison with the explanations State Farm and its attorneys argue for no water injury protection is staggering.
State Farm first argued that water injury isn’t lined if the leak occurs regularly. Even when the house out of the blue floods following a gradual leak, State Farm claims in its arguments that there isn’t a protection. In different phrases, if a hidden pipe trickled for a number of days or even weeks earlier than busting and being found, you’re out of luck. Second, State Farm persuaded the court docket that corrosion, rust, or deterioration of the pipe is a protection killer, even when the break itself seems abrupt. Third, the corporate efficiently claimed that water from a damaged pipe beneath your slab is excluded as soon as it touches soil or seeps via a crack within the concrete and lumps this frequent state of affairs into the identical class as pure “subsurface water.” Fourth, improper set up or building defects in a pipe resulting in water injury had been raised as one other potential bar to restoration, no matter how lengthy you’ve faithfully paid premiums. Fifth, humidity, moisture, or condensation that develops over time falls neatly into the exclusion basket as properly.
If State Farm wished its promoting to match its litigation stance, it must rewrite its web site with brutal honesty:
- Leaks that occur over time, even a number of days, will not be lined, even when your pipe is hidden and your property out of the blue floods with water.
- Harm brought on by corrosion, rust, deterioration, put on and tear, latent defects, or inherent vice is excluded, even when the leak appears to be like abrupt.
- Water from a damaged pipe below your slab that travels via soil or cracks within the slab is handled as “water beneath the floor of the bottom” and denied, regardless of how the leak started.
- Water losses involving improper set up or building defects in plumbing or associated techniques aren’t lined.
- Humidity, moisture, or condensation that develops over time is excluded.
I couldn’t discover any of those examples of exclusions about protection in State Farm’s advertising and marketing examples. As an alternative, the corporate leaves shoppers with the impression that if a pipe bursts and water damages the house, they’re safely lined.
When the day comes and a declare is filed, the exclusions descend like a trapdoor upon State Farm’s policyholders. Their promoting invitations belief and protection. The courtroom arguments and people causes for no water injury protection ship betrayal. This isn’t a “good neighbor” method of doing enterprise.
This case ought to be a crimson flag for anybody enthusiastic about shopping for a State Farm coverage. It reveals simply how little likelihood the typical home-owner has of recovering from a water loss when the insurer is armed with an arsenal of exclusions it by no means bothered to say in its gross sales pitch. There are a whole bunch of all these denials and arguments in court docket, which ought to be shared with prospects so that everyone is on truthful warning about what occurs when a State Farm policyholder suffers a water loss.
I urge policyholders and others to learn State Farm’s Movement for Abstract Judgment on this case. State Farm ought to ship it to its prospects, warning about its interpretation of its coverage limitations, earlier than losses happen.
Owners deserve transparency. They need to know the principles of the sport earlier than catastrophe strikes. State Farm’s failure to reveal the true scope of its water injury exclusions is deceptive. It’s a warning signal flashing in crimson for each potential policyholder.
Thought For The Day
“In at the moment of fast dissemination of data, it’s unattainable for any group to succeed for any size of time, until based upon the essential rules of absolute honesty.”
—G.J. Mecherle, founding father of State Farm
1 Sims v. State Farm Hearth & Cas. Co., No. 4:23-CV-00813 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 4, 2025). (See additionally, State Farm’s Movement for Abstract Judgment, and the Policyholder’s temporary in opposition).
