{"id":10691,"date":"2016-10-19T06:20:26","date_gmt":"2016-10-19T06:20:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/propertyinsurancecoveragelaw\/2016\/10\/19\/cosmetic-and-functional-damage-an-academic-discussion-by-neil-hall\/"},"modified":"2016-10-19T06:20:26","modified_gmt":"2016-10-19T06:20:26","slug":"cosmetic-and-functional-damage-an-academic-discussion-by-neil-hall","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com\/blog\/cosmetic-and-functional-damage-an-academic-discussion-by-neil-hall\/","title":{"rendered":"Cosmetic and Functional Damage – An Academic Discussion by Neil Hall"},"content":{"rendered":"

Insurance companies have turned the property insurance world upside down by denying claims based on engineers who claim that no "functional damage" occurred and only "cosmetic damage" was sustained at the insured property. Most of us in the property insurance claims business have been taught that any "physical damage" is covered by a property insurance policy. This concept of "physical damage" as the bell weather proof of the type of damage covered under property insurance policies is changing and challenged by some insurers and their forensic vendors who claim that "cosmetic damage" is not really the type of "physical damage" covered under insurance policies.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I have previously written about this issue:<\/p>\n