The above article doesn't appear to relate to non permitted work that you mention?? If you see it, fine for you...

It does as it is an example of misrepresentation. Insurance companies will look for ANY loophole to deny a claim.....especially if the action results in a fire or other damage. In this case, its misrepresentation...if you live in an area that requires permits for work done, and you do not obtain them,and property damage and/or loss of life results from shoddy renovations, don't assume that your insurer will gladly pay out despite the fact that you failed to abide by the law in making certain that the renovations were done to code as there could be a huge price to pay.

Point is, research the policy.

"An insurance company covering the contractor..."

This has anything to do with a homeowner's policy how?

Business insurance is a far different thing tan homeowner's insurance.

Business in insurance is not regulated nearly as tightly since it is assumed to be between two equals, a businesses and an insurance company. Each should have attorneys available to look out for their interests and to negotiate policy terms.

Homeowner's insurance is between a business and a single consumer/customer.
The customer takes what the company offers, with little to no ability to alter terms.
You take what is offered or find another company.

Everyone should read their homeowner's policy thoroughly.
They have gotten better over the years (more plain English) but are still a complicated document.

As the author of the contract, any ambiguity goes against the insurance company.
They want to cover every issue clearly and to their benefit.

As the others have said, this is not about homeowners insurance. It's about a contractor's insurance where he may have explicitly lied about his business scope.

Plus, it's only saying that the insurance company is ATTEMPTING to refuse the claim. Get back to us when there is an actual judgement made.

Logic,

You make a valid point about working with a contractor who will obtains the proper permits and does professional work. However in this case I don't see the connection. There is no mention of the contractor not having the required permits.

The contractor had insurance, but it appears he misrepresented his business in order to pay a lower premium. I can see a homeowner asking if the contractor has insurance, but I don't see how a homeowner could ever verify if the insurance coverage is valid for that type of business.

I saw this story on the local news. This is a very sad tradegy for this family.

The issue of permits is quite muddy. There were a number of earlier articles stating he had no permits as he was not legally able to work in CT as his license to do so had expired. Same for NY.

However, the same articles mentioned that that the building inspectors had inspected the house a few months earlier and that there were no violations(e.g. smoke detectors not being in place)although that was later said to be the case (smoke detectors disconnected and stored in the garage)at the time of the actual fire. How did they miss the fact that he had no permits and no legal right to perform the work in CT when doing an inspection?

That brings us to the the demolition of the house the next day, before it could be inspected to determine cause...and that demolition was ordered by the building department in Stamford...that apparently inspected the work of an unlicensed contractor with no permits and did not find that to be a violation.

That provides a bit more detail, but again, as far as insurance is concerned,regardless if it is for a business or a home, the point is to NOT assume anything. Read the policy and make certain of your coverage...period.

greg2010, as you seem to be very interested in the outcome,follow the story on your own.
You may learn even more.

Dad of Stamford Fire Victims Plans to Sue
by Anthony Buzzeo

STAMFORD, Conn. � Matthew Badger has filed a notice of intent to sue the city of Stamford for negligence in connection with the Christmas morning fire that took the lives of his daughters Sarah, Grace and Lilly.

The notice was delivered to the Town Clerk�s office Friday, May 4, by Badger�s lawyer. The Shippan Avenue home destroyed by fire was owned by Badger�s estranged wife, Madonna, who was one of the two survivors of the blaze.

The notice names the city's director of operations Ernie Orgera, City Engineer Louis Casolo, Assessor Francis Kirwin and Building Official Robert DeMarco for their or their office�s part in allowing the girls to be in the home at the time of the fire.

"[Badger] suffered damages as a consequence of the aforementioned parties� negiligence, carelessness, and actions, including but not limited to the wrongful death of the children on December 25, 2011," the notice said.

The notice points to several actions by the city that might have led to the deaths, including the wrongful issuance of permits to Michael Borcina and/or Tiberias Construction Inc., and to Michael Foley and/or Foley�s Fine Carpentry Inc.

It also alleges that city officials either did not inspect the construction enough or did so carelessly, failure to follow up on inspections despite the home's being in unsafe condition for the children, and for allowing the children to live in the house without working smoke detectors and a fire alarm system.

The notice described the demolition of the home the day after the fire as "intentional spoliation of evidence."

By Tuesday afternoon, Town Clerk Donna Loglisci said she had not yet received the actual suit.

Messages have been left for both Joseph Capalbo II, director of Legal Affairs for Stamford, and Richard Emery, Badger�s attorney.

He may get 'go away money' based on the cost to defend the nuisance suite.