A doctor couple (whom I'll refer to as Mr. P) in their thirties, who immigrated from South Asia, lived in a two-story single-family home in Pomona, L.A. County. On January 1, 2012 they discovered that a bedroom on the second floor was wet. The water had come down through the tile roof of the house and infiltrated the closet and wood floor. Immediately after the flood, they filed a claim with the insurance company. After the roof contractor assigned by the insurance company visited and inspected the site, Mr. P was notified that he couldn't receive compensation due to the following reasons:

1. The flooded home seemed to have the structural wear and tear in progress due to faulty workmanship from the construction of the new home.

2. On the day Mr. P discovered the flooding, the source of flooring were result of intrusion of the rain water occurred due to rain storm.

3. Because Mr. P's home insurance only covered the damage caused by external influences (DP-3 policy), the insurance company couldn’t compensate the damage caused by faulty construction, and wear and tear of the roof.

Mr. P, who received the notice as mentioned above, was greatly surprised at the unexpected attitude of the insurance company, and eventually he became angry. Upon his discovery of the flooding, Mr. P thought the insurance company would surely compensate, since he had home insurance. Even after he received the denial notice, he thought there might be a mistake within the insurance company. (Mr. P could not understand the reason for claim rejection.) He contacted the claim adjuster of the insurance company several times and strongly requested another review of his case. He even pleaded in regard to his pitiful situation. The situation of the couple was that, due to the flood, the room for the baby, which was due to be born in a month, was gone.

to be continued…