Standard Coverage for Frozen Pipes
How Frozen Pipes Are Typically Covered
In standard HO-2 homeowners insurance policies with 16 named perils, frozen pipes are covered as a separate, distinct peril - specifically "frozen pipes and damage to HVAC, fire protection sprinklers, or household appliances caused by freezing."
Insurance policies often cover the resulting water damage if frozen pipes burst, if the homeowner has taken reasonable steps to maintain the pipes and keep them from freezing, with homeowners' policies covering damage from a "sudden and accidental" discharge from a plumbing system.
What's Covered vs. Not Covered
Most homeowners' insurance policies cover damage from frozen pipes if they burst, generally including expenses related to cleaning and required repairs due to water damage, though it's important to note that the insurance might not cover the cost of repairing or replacing the burst pipe itself, which is often considered a maintenance issue.
Why "Explosion" Coverage Might Apply: Theoretical Arguments
The Physics of Pipe Bursts
When water freezes in a pipe, it expands by approximately 9%, creating immense pressure within the confined space. When the pipe finally gives way, this could theoretically be characterized as an "explosion" for several reasons:
- Sudden Release of Pressure: The burst represents a sudden, violent release of built-up pressure—a key characteristic of an explosion
- Force and Damage Pattern: The water doesn't merely leak; it explodes outward with force, causing immediate and widespread damage
- Dictionary Definition: Legal interpretation often relies on common dictionary definitions of terms, and "explosion" is typically defined as a sudden, violent bursting or rupture
Policy Interpretation Principles
Insurance policies are generally:
- Construed against the insurer (contra proferentem rule)
- Interpreted to provide coverage when the language is ambiguous
- Read from the perspective of an ordinary policyholder, not an insurance professional
When This Argument Might Be Necessary
The "explosion" coverage argument would primarily be relevant in basic named peril policies (HO-1) that include "explosion" as a covered peril but do NOT separately list "freezing" or "water damage" as covered perils. In such cases:
- A policyholder might argue that the violent bursting of a frozen pipe constitutes an "explosion"
- This interpretation would be necessary to secure coverage under a more limited policy
- Courts would need to determine whether the ordinary meaning of "explosion" encompasses a pipe burst
Limitations and Challenges
Maintenance Requirements
Insurance policies may not respond if it appears you neglected to take the proper steps to safeguard your property, as policies usually require that heat be maintained within the property, with some policies requiring a certain temperature be maintained even if the property is vacant.
Common Denial Reasons
Insurance claims for frozen and burst pipes could be denied if you did not replace old or corroded pipes, failed to properly insulate pipes, or if you could have easily prevented the frozen or burst pipe from taking place, such as turning off the heat in your home during cold weather.
Conclusion
While frozen pipe bursts are not typically covered under "explosion" provisions in modern insurance policies (because they're covered under separate "freezing" or "water damage" perils), the theoretical argument exists for older or more basic policies. The violent, pressure-driven nature of a pipe burst shares characteristics with an explosion, potentially making this interpretation viable in cases where:
- The policy has explosion coverage but lacks specific freezing/water damage coverage
- The policy language is ambiguous about what constitutes an "explosion"
- The policyholder can demonstrate they took reasonable preventative measures
However, most modern HO-2 and HO-3 policies explicitly list frozen pipes as a separate covered peril, making the "explosion" argument largely unnecessary in contemporary insurance disputes.
